The Smiley Smile Message Board

In another thread a fan speculated about the future of the Beach Boys touring franchise after Mike goes/retires, mentioning that Jeffrey Foskett has designs on it. Must admit, that idea never occurred to me. I know Foskett has a long history with the band and Brian Wilson, but would a Foskett-led touring BB even be financially viable? I wouldn't bother to go see them, would you? And is there any truth to this speculation?

Don't know if there's any truth to his "designs", but I wouldn't go and see a Foskett led Beach Boys touring unit, though my guess is the casual fan would.

There are a couple pages of discussion on this, more or less, in the thread "Beach Boys After Mike Love." You may find people's opinions there. It's a pretty recent thread, still 1st page.

I can't speak to whether or not there is any truth to it, but as I said in the other thread, it absolutely makes sense on a human level even if it isn't what we as fans would like to see: Foskett has been working for one or another part of Beach Boys Inc. on and off for more than 30 years (nearer 40 years actually). It stands to reason from his perspective that, having put in the time, he's as entitled as anyone to take over the business when the bossman retires.

As for whether it would be financially viable, I don't see how it would be that much less so than the Mike & Bruce show. They would at least be able to continue playing the casino circuit and other venues of that nature. The people who go to Mike & Bruce shows, for the most part, clearly don't care who's in the band, as long as the hits and harmonies keep coming.

To my knowledge, the Basie and Ellington bands are still touring and I don't see how a Beach Boys ghost band shouldn't carry on similarly. They practically are a ghost band already -- no judgment intended -- for all intents and purposes led by Scott Totten.

Found the other thread, it seems some are okay with Jeff taking over, he's certainly paid his dues. I prefer a tribute band, like Papa Doo Run Run or Endless Summer or California Saga, that would fly with the fans, I suspect. As for the state fair circuit, it's true that people there might not care too much as long as they hear the hits, but they are no fools, they know this music is from the 60s and 70s, so to have younger guys performing in the 2020s, well, it doesn't add up. Retire the BB name and leave the legacy to the tribute bands. I saw The Bootleg Beatles, considered the best of that lot. They even performed Sgt. Pepper songs on stage, something the real Beatles never even attempted.

I bet lots of Beatles tribute bands play material the Beatles never attempted, since the Beatles stopped playing live in 1966. I saw the Fab Faux and they were very good. As much as some might wince at tribute bands, if the music is good enough and musicians are good, going to see one can make for an enjoyable evening. But I do get annoyed when bands continue to use the same name after all the original or almost-original members have passed away or retired. Seems like they're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. A play on the name seems to be the way to go.

When Love retires there is an obvious person to take over the Beach Boys touring band:  AL JARDINE!!  And I would definitely pay to go see a band with Al, Jeff, Bruce, and whatever relatives of BB members are willing to go along - Carnie, Matt, etc.  I'm sure Blondie would be amenable to doing what he has been doing for Brian.  Mike has the license and doesn't get along with Al but if Mike was gone, what would prevent Al from getting the license?

That was kind of my point, one of the reasons why they stopped touring was because the music had gotten too complex to perform on stage, at least from Revolver on. So they stopped after Candlestick Park in 66. And "A Day in the Life" cannot really be recreated on stage, although it was interesting to hear an attempt at it.

All of this seems like pretty farfetched speculation. There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that Jeff would even want to lead the Beach Boys band, let alone that the Beach Boys would want that to happen. I agree with the person that said that Al would make a good frontman, although I'm not sure he'd want to tour as extensively as Mike & Bruce do.

Why would Mike retire and not Al? Being one year older?

& Al *was* a good frontman when he toured with Family & Friends band. :3d

Agreed!

I can't really see how Mike gets to pick who carries on the band name. I would guess that, once Mike steps down, the license ends. Any new agreement for licensing would have to be negotiated with BRI. Can't really see Brian, Al and Carl's estate jumping on the chance to hand the band to Foskett, especially if there are actual Beach Boys who are still willing to tour the name. Once there are no living original members, I guess anything is possible. But, it's pretty creepy to think that Foskett is just waiting in the wings for everyone to die.

The Beatles didn't really stop touring because the songs were too tough to recreate live.  I have always believed that Brian did though.  He had a 'vision' in terms of how he wanted 'it' to sound.  His group back then couldn't deliver that.  The one he has now can.  Still...The Beach Boys soldiered on and, thanks to Jack Rieley, reached a point where they were A-1 excellent live... ... ...for awhile.  The Beatles stopped touring because it was a major pain in the ass to do it [I mean they couldn't even hear one another]  and because they had become hotel bound prisoners.  They also, subsequently, began to head in different directions which didn't include spending every waking hour with one another.  They would all resume touring solo though.

The reasons you mention were also part of it, I wrote "one of the reasons". I have always read it as your reasons plus the one I mentioned. Did Revolver come out before or after Candlestick Park?

The Four Freshmen still tour to this day. The last original member, Bob Flanigan, the tenor, upon whom Brian based his vocal style), retired in 1992. He continued to authorize other musicians to continue with the Four Freshmen name and playing their music. The Beach Boys could continue to do the same thing for decades.

Could, and almost certainly will. As I said upthread, the audiences who go to M&B shows don't care who's in the band.

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Candlestick-Park-hosted-final-Beatles-tour-stop-9190760.php

Exactly. A friend is a huge FF fan but once Bob retired he was done with the shows as I was with the BBs when Carl and Dennis were gone and myKe luHv kicked Al out. Had myKe and Br00th died instead, and Carl and Dennis survived and joined up with Brian and Al, it obviously would have been a much better story. But wasting time and money seeing M&B?? Don't think so. ::)

I confess that I like the idea that there will always be a Beach Boys group touring the music, as long as there is a real link with the originals, be it a long collaboration and experience (by now, almost everyone in Brian's and Mike's groups) or even better blood relationship (Matt Jardine etc.). A big pool of talent has gathered around Brian's music.

I know you're known for your nonsensical sh*t on here, but did you actually just suggest that Mike and Bruce should have died instead of Carl and Dennis? That's pretty disturbing.

I agree, and this is how ghost bands have always worked -- usually it is either members of the original group or epigones of serious standing. That is to say, generally everyone in a ghost band is either one or, at most, two steps removed from the original leader/members.

I probably wouldn't see a "Beach Boys" with no original members, but what I would do is neither here or there. I certainly wouldn't object to such an entity existing, and Jeff Foskett in particular has as much a right as anyone else to direct it.

Don't think THAT is what OSD said.  It was HAD they expired/IF they had expired.  It WASN'T "too bad they didn't kick the bucket" AT ALL.  And yes if we still had HEALTHY of mind, body and spirit Wilsons contributing to the GROUP it would be a good thing.  Thank goodness for Scott Totten and his hand on THAT rudder. 

I would be in support of any continuation that kept the Beach Boys' music alive, as long as it retained a certain standard of quality in performance.

Thanks, Lee, for explaining that rocket science post of mine for the thin skinned one.  :lol

I've wondered about this too. Do these guys have 401ks or something comparable? What happens when the touring guy retires? Like Paul McCartney's band. What will those guys do? Is there any kind of security net?

I will also add my opinion that I do like the idea of the Beach Boys touring group continuing on and on and on.

Maybe the grandkids can carry on the name and tradition after Mike and Bruce are gone.

Jeff's not exactly a young guy either. He's gotta be pushing 60.  Hypothetically if Mike toured 5 more years, Jeff would be about 65. Is he really going to suddenly assume leadership of a major touring band at 65?

Jeff'll be 61 in February.  You really think Mike will tour 'til he's 80?  Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  5 more years of dumb-asshat interview quotes and nasal renderings of formerly great memories.  Bury me alive.  And soon.  Heaven is already hell.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

.

How about a Beach Boys with Jeff Foskett and David Marks?

Or with various members of California Saga?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

 Didn't The Drifters do it at one time?

I'm pretty sure that the current version of Molly Hatchet has no original members. 

Also, this past summer, Foreigner played some shows without their lone original member, Mick Jones. 

The Grass Roots are touring with no original members.

I thought I heard that Creed Bratton was doing shows with them again.  Maybe I heard wrong, so he was just a guest (or maybe it was one of those C50 scenarios where an incorrect photo was used). 

The Beach Boys legacy is the music - I have to say bluntly and honestly that the name should be retired in terms of touring once there are no members able to tour. The Beatles got it right. Once the band split, once Lennon was gone, followed by Harrison, there would and could be no more "Beatles" tours or shows, period. That puts the focus of all future generations on the original music that they created and all related works. Everything else done live is a tribute, there is no licensing of musicians to call themselves The Beatles and book shows as The Beatles. Tribute bands can pay all associated fees to charge people to hear the music live, they can wear the right costumes and stage a great show, but the decision that there would be no more Beatles after a certain point was a very wise decision when it was agreed upon by the band members. Kudos to Paul and Ringo as the only true authorities able to make such decisions for letting the music remain the legacy. I cannot imagine Paul or Ringo attempting to assemble a band - no matter how good - and tour as The Beatles.

Look at that legacy. The Beatles are arguably the strongest and most recognizable rock and roll "brand" of them all. And there has not been a single Beatles live show since the rooftop in January 1969. The Anthology recordings were done only with the agreement that John's contributions would be a key component, and with the assembled team going into the project with the attitude that John left these recordings to be finished and went away on holiday. That was the way they justified and proceeded with the work on recording those reunion tracks. It was the right way. The tracks released have grown better with time. It was not at all a stain on the legacy, and people can hear the four Beatles on "new" recordings with their respective signature sounds and contributions. Everything else including "Love" and those remixes was done with the support and blessings of all respective estates.

If The Beach Boys legacy falls into a situation where anyone who played with them or backed them up can start touring as The Beach Boys, I don't want to see it happen. Harsh, but that's my honest opinion. In this scenario, there needs to be a set end date where it ends and there will be tribute bands and shows like "Rain" and "The Fab Faux", but no Beach Boys under an official name.

Protecting the brand at some point has to include common sense and respect as much as looking toward generating income through touring. See The Beatles and Apple Corp. for a prime example of how this works. Not a single Beatles show since January 1969 and the brand still going strong.

I agree, and I think there's a lot to say about bands who had great runs, who didn't "wear out their welcome."

Take The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Cream, etc.  Granted, with some of these, there have been one offs and tours under amended names) but they ceased to exist after the original group went away or retired. 

On the other hand, there are bands like Deep Purple, The Who, and The Beach Boys who are not nearly as revered as the other bands I mentioned, and I think that's in part to the fact that, other than some hiatuses, those b(r)ands still exist. 

I agree with the points being made here... up to a point. Imho the "way of the Beatles", if it's the best, should have been taken at the very latest in 1998 (or better, 1983): now it's too late to protect the Beach Boys legacy as a precious, unrepeatable moment in the past.
The way things have gone, maybe it's better to go all the way in that direction, and make the Beach Boys the Never Ending Band. There is more than one way to become legends.
And I thnk music is not there to be revered, but to make people happy. :)

I also think that what happens when Mike is no longer fronting the band will depend on *why* Mike in any given scenario is no longer fronting the band.

If he chose to retire, then we'd have to weigh what Mike would want and vote for; and I'm pretty 50/50 on that. I could see him taking the ego-driven angle of feeling his fronting the band *is* irreplaceable. But I could also envision him retiring and seeing making a few hundred K per year sitting at home as the preferable approach.

But I don't think that scenario is particularly likely. Despite Elliott Lott telling the media in 1999 or so that Mike only had a few more years of touring left (though that was probably just said to strengthen the case that Al touring as "BBFF" was taking a finite amount of potential revenue away from Mike), I see no indication that anything short of death or being incapacitated will lead to Mike no longer fronting the band.

At that point, it will most likely be Mike's estate being 1/4 of the decision making process. Considering even Carl's estate has not seemed to be particularly protective of the preserving any sort of legacy for the band (in as much as allowing the name to be used with fewer and fewer members is concerned), I can't imagine a potential Mike estate would be anything but just as inclined if not more so to continue to net some licensing revenue one way or another.

What's sad is that, given the politics and weirdness of what's left of BRI, I could envision a scenario where Jeff Foskett takes the license even with a living and able Al Jardine still kicking. Which would probably be just as well; I would have little interest in Al taking Mike's place in a "Beach Boys" show at this stage.

It's one of many reasons why I think it's funny when some fans get pegged as to adamantly anti-Mike; I think myself and others would agree that, if Mike weren't around, a "Beach Boys" reunion tour consisting of Brian, Al, Bruce, and Dave doesn't seem to be particularly interesting of worth the trouble, and that would be because Mike *would* be integral to such a venture.

What Mike COULD have been if the 2012 reunion continued is what makes the current situation so maddening.

Agreed

Yes, the Drifters had at least two major incarnations. The original, and the UK-based Drifters in the 1970s, who scored big with "Saturday Night at the Movies". The difference is that the second incarnation actually had chart hits of their own, making them more valid than being just a tribute band.

One reason that this thread is strange to me- let's be realistic, I am very sure that even Jeffrey Foskett would tell you that Jeffrey Foskett fronting the Beach Boys doesn't have a whole lot of drawing power.  And that isn't a slight against Jeffrey Foskett. 

I could see him doing something like licensing Pet Sounds and having a chamber group cover the entire thing, with him singing.  But Foskett paying money to hit the road and sling Surfin' USA doesn't make sense.

Do you really think there would be a market for such a presentation of Pet Sounds considering how many people in 2016 and into 2017 are filling venues to hear Brian, Al, and the band play the full album including some select cities where they had orchestral backing on stage?

There were at least 3 authentic versions of the HIT-MAKING Drifters in the U.S. alone.  So the fact that there were a bunch of Drifters groups is actually valid.  Clyde McPhatter was the lead vocalist for the original incarnation.  Ben E. King and Johnny Moore also scored hits as the group's lead singer.  Heck...I almost forgot Rudy Lewis.  These guys were employees.  Ask for a raise?  You're toast.  Then came the move to England and more lineup changes.  So?  There were something like 6 versions of the Drifters who had a hand in the hit-making and the group's success.  As far as I'm concerned they ALL deserved to make a living performing the collective body of work.

The Platters on the other hand?  There were too many versions of that group to be honest.  Same with the Beach Boys.  Mike [and Al previously] contributed to the watering down of the product.  ONLY Brian has the true, real cred for as long as he's active.  To not link up with him is misleading and cheapens the group name and legacy.  It's only a facsimile...reasonable or otherwise.

Blood, Sweat and Tears tour with no original members
www.bloodsweatandtears.com

No David Clayton Thomas?  [Who's still alive and recording new material...and still has that entirely distinctive voice]  That ain't B.S. and T's.  It's just B.S.

Thomas was not an original member of BST.

I don't care.  Mean's nothing whatsoever.  Al Kooper's version was what?  Not hitmakers.  David sang ALL of their hits.

Okay, you know more than I do here, but I would add that I consider the first Drifters groups one entity, with different lead vocalists. The UK-based, I think only one incarnation had hits in a major way, they have been reissued on the 7T's label.

Let's get down to brass tacks for a minute: The whole issue of rock bands and oldies acts touring under a specific band name is an issue of using a name to get better bookings and more money for those tickets and shows. My own opinion, even speaking as a musician with a very serious concern about musicians making a living playing music, is that I have little or no interest in paying to see rock bands with either zero or very little involvement from key members who made the original music special on stage performing a jukebox of hits and covers. Some people will pay for these shows because they really dig hearing live music, and that's fine. But I don't care to see any number of 60's or 70's hitmakers touring as "The (insert band name)" play cover versions with a lineup of anonymous musicians hired for the gigs, or something like the original bass player who didn't even sing or really do much beyond play bass live in the 60's carrying on a band name if the key members are either dead or not interested in touring with the band. It becomes a cover band or a tribute band at that point.

There are exceptions. I could be wrong, but I believe this licensing of a band name might go back to the Glenn Miller Orchestra in 1944 during WW2. Glenn himself was killed or lost in a transport plane flight during the war, some say it was and is still a mystery and others say a returning bomber squadron mistakenly unloaded their unused or misfired bomb loads without realizing Miller's transport plane was flying underneath them crossing the flight path. Anyway, Miller's plane never arrived and he was never found.

So the family, the "estate", decided along with the war dept to keep the name alive, for morale and considering Miller had assembled an all-star lineup of musicians to be in his USAAF Band to perform at various military bases and for radio broadcasts to the troops and those in the States.

After the war, the Miller Band continued because they were one of if not the most popular big bands. Everyone knew Miller wasn't there, but there was a stipulation that there would be one and only one "Glenn Miller Orchestra" playing the band's signature book of arrangements and tunes, with conditions of quality and presentation. And for as long as they did it, some of the original Miller band musicians and stars were part of those live shows, and they continued to be a big draw. There is still a Miller band, I believe, playing today and using the same licensed "book" of charts and working as the only authorized Miller band.

This prevented any rag-tag bunch of players or even hucksters in the promotions biz from sending their own Glenn Miller Orchestra on the road and charging double the booking fees for people who wouldn't know the difference. Other name bands followed suit, making sure the legacy of the music stayed in good hands and their original sound in the arrangements would be preserved.

But that's kind of a different scene, isn't it: Big Band, jazz, etc. That's where the Four Freshmen I think fit into that niche, where there was a band licensed to play the original arrangements so there wouldn't be imposters calling themselves the Freshmen to get better bookings and higher rates.

Rock changed all that. Bands themselves were self contained and had less rotation of members. There were specific key members who fans know and would expect at any live show billed as that band. If a key member couldn't do those shows, there were at least a majority of the other musicians who were the originals there on stage and making decisions. Look at Queen, Journey, etc...These bands were still the same players on stage but when the original lead singer was not there, a suitable replacement was found and agreed on by the band and estates, and the tours went ahead. Some fans reject that, but isn't that the best compromise if a 4-piece has three original members playing on stage?

The market decides. But a band whose legacy is that of The Beach Boys should *NOT* be in that category, ever. They're in the upper echelon. There were some rough times in the years since Carl's passing. Let's not prolong this beyond a reasonable "set end date" and have a situation where someone can bid on the naming rights in the future and tour as The Beach Boys. That to me would not be cool at all no matter how many people may for whatever reason buy tickets to something of that nature in the future.

While there's a lot to be said for that, to me the key word that discredits (ok that's a harsh word, but bear with me) your conclusion is "should." I just don't believe there is a "should" in any legal and ethical option, one of which would be a post-"real member" version of the band. If the business owners want to carry on with some sort of licensed version under the name, they can: no should or shouldn't involved. Some people will consider such a thing a slap in the face of history, probably; others will get a lot of joy from seeing such a band perform that great music. I can't see either set, or anyone falling in between, having the authority of "should" on their side.

Ultimately any decision will be judged by its results.

I'm personally not romantic about it. Most such acts, I mock heartily, and could well do just that to a post-Beach Boys Beach Boys. But who knows? You could make a great band even from current BW and BB band members that I'd absolutely pay to see. Real schmeal, authentic schmauthentic.

999,999,9999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999%

:lol The way you said that made me sh*t in laughter.

I mean, not literally but you know...

To be honest, I just don't like the idea of The Beach Boys name still being used when Brian Wilson's no longer with us. Regardless of whether or not he's in the band, there's something very disheartening about the group continuing without him in some shape or form.

I agree. Some basic things should transcend profits, egos, and "the brand" with related protection thereof, and this is one of them.

     +10

I think that would apply if Mike wasn't with us either too.

If there was a group with no original members, then it needs to be named something like "Beach Boys Legacy" or some mess like that. The band name IMHO should be retired at that point.

DCT left BS&T in 2004...moved home to Toronto and still makes solo albums.  BS&T is now fronted by Bo Bice who was on American Idol.... The BS&T name is owned by the original drummer Bobby Colomby.  He chooses the current musicians who make up the band.

Stamos will take over. He's been a Beach Boy for almost as long as Jeff, and more name recognition.
I am hoping this holographic technology really advances.

If Stamos takes over, maybe Bob Saget and Dave Coulier can become official members too. And even Coulier's Woodchuck and Jackalope puppets could blaze a trail to become the first non-human official members of the band.  First order of business might be to get their buddy ALF to do a cameo guest vocal performance on Help Me, Rhonda.

Jesus, you are giving me and OSD heart-attacks! :-\

Why not just have the entire Tanner family (except the Olsons of course, who're too busy for Fuller House).

Comet the Dog can add the barks to Caroline, No!

Speaking about having the entire Tanner family, we could also bring on the other Tanner family (The Tanners from ALF), while we're at it. Willie, the neighbor Mrs. Ockmoneck, etc...  Twice the Tanners = twice as nice.

And if Jeff Foskett doesn't stick around, Full (and Fuller) House creator Jeff Franklin might be an option. Another Jeff F.  

In keeping with the early 90s vibe, this new version of The BBs could focus on the song Problem Child, playing exclusively that one song over and over again in the set.

(http://i68.tinypic.com/t83n28.jpg)

I'd actually go to this show, no joke!

Where are Stephanie and DJ?

CD wins the thread! ;D

That ALF & Willie Tanner  (Tanner...was that the last name?!) picture just made giggle.

Yep, both ALF and Full House featured the Tanners. 

Was Filleplage a Tanner? >:D

Busy working on their side project, Celebration (of Fuller House Being Renewed)

Man, if someone could photoshop Willie Tanner adjusting his mic stand, I would be forever grateful

I picture her more as an Ochmonic, or however the ALf neighbors spelt their name

"True" Billy and did you know stamos performs with "the touring band" ;)

He can tour with a rubber band for all I care. Foskett's already touring with a lap band, and Mike is touring with a lap dog (Bruce) so...

And Brian's got a goshdarn great band! :lol

Yup 8)

Weird, actually, now that I think about it, I might pay to see John Stamos fronting the Beach Boys.  It's a way more compelling draw than Mike and Bruce...
Gross.

"Actually" SMiLE Brian (if that's your real name)......the correct way to reference Mike's group is with the capitalized "Touring Band" as if it's some official entity named the Touring Band.

Good times calling it "The Bar Band" to Filleplage.

SMiLE Brian,
 
Mike has the license to tour under the name “The Beach Boys.” However, many “longtime” fans consider this offensive, especially while Brian Wilson continues to tour, as he has for nearly 20 years now. We can disagree without being disagreeable. “The Touring Band” often plays casinos, state fairs, and the like, while Brian Wilson’s band has more often performed at “upscale” environments, including theaters. Touring is an essential part of a band’s income, especially with the collapse of the traditional music industry. Physical “product” is no longer the dominant medium through which listeners enjoy music.
 
The internet now offers numerous download and “streaming” services whereby listeners can purchase or even enjoy music for free. The music “business” has for decades been based in Los Angeles, where unfortunately the Soros-driven Democratic agenda has seen corruption only recently made public through Wiki Leaks. Unfortunately the corporate special interest mainstream media has failed many people in reporting in a biased manner based on their leftist agenda and they have now been caught. People are expressing their frustration as we have seen with this year’s election. The Clinton machine can no longer “cover up” the organized crime such as found in the pizzeria. Many children are trafficked every year. God bless and keep safe Julian Assange.
 
The undue influence of financiers such as Soros has changed the world ……… and not for the better. Mike Love and his Touring Band continue to perform music that is beloved by many people. The voters have “flipped the bird” to the parties and this is something to keep in mind.  ;)

And, it's even better with no capitol letters. the bar band will do quite nicely.

captain lol !!   its a filleplage thang  8)

Brilliant post Captain, all the FDP "style" down perfectly! :3d

Nah, needed to be about 8 paragraphs longer and written in MLA format.

 :lol

Holy s**t, it's scary and impressive how accurate this is.  :lol

But you forgot to mention how much all the kids like John Stamos and "Full House!"

My favorite part of the continual references to "The Touring Band" was that she blamed having to use that term herself on people that aren't fans of Mike's band, as if they forced Mike to license the name and create the confusing scenario where referring to "The Beach Boys" could mean about a half dozen different things.

We need an "encore"! :lol

SMiLE Brian - you are making this personal. It is not personal. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Some people refuse to see the "Touring Band" because they are against anything "Mike" related. They refuse to see that Mike is essential to the band's history and are resorting to the old "divide and conquer" method. Some of us were there in "real time" and lived the band's history. Brian Wilson tours with a band under his own name, as he has done since at least 2000. However, the "Touring Band" holds the license (October 1, 1998) to perform under the name The Beach Boys.

There are those on this forum who have reviewed the legal contract that authorizes this situation. Contracts date back to ancient Greece and have remained a part of law throughout the history of Western Civilization. You may not approve of my source but you can view it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_contract_law Today many are skeptical of sources because of "fake news," which has become an excuse for the corporate special interest mainstream media as to their own bias toward the Soros-funded Clinton machine. People now have more information than ever before, as we have seen through the Wiki Leaks information, Podesta emails, etc. When cornered with truth, the media has begun to fight back by name-calling those sources they don't consider "credible." I advise you to use your own reason.  ;)

John Stamos has been a part of the Beach Boys organization for decades, including appearances with Brian Wilson. He also was able to generate substantial interest in the group on his 90s sitcom, "Full House," in which he sang Dennis Wilson's "Forever" numerous times.

Many people take different positions on the future of the Beach Boys, as many musicians of their era have sadly "passed on." David Bowie died in early 2016, and Leonard Cohen died recently. Others have died as well. While many take diverse opinions as to the band's future, and whether a group (Foskett, Stamos, etc.) should continue, for many of us the "real" band has already ceased to exist. ;)  But this wonderful music is available "forever." Like the Serenity Prayer, change what you can ....... and be wise enough to know when you can't.  ;)

What is important is that the band has pleased millions for many decades. The 4th of July concerts drew hundreds of thousands of people, celebrating the independence of America, which has been protected by our troops. The current administration has shamefully failed our veterans, which led to many lifelong Democrats leaving the party to vote for Trump. I do not support all of his statements, yet one must only look at his daughter's success to see what kind of person he is. He raised her well and she is very well educated and successful, which says a lot. The VA faces scandal after scandal and it is time to "clean house." The people have spoken with a strong "mandate."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ti8-vEM3U8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kus-YGkFR8w

Stamos brought a youthful appeal because of his good looks and he continues to perform occasionally with the band on stage, whether on drums, guitar, or percussion. However those of us who lived the band's history in "real time" do not believe he could replace Dennis. John Stamos is not currently leading the Beach Boys or even performing permanently, so some may be putting the "cart before the horse" with speculation.

Your "debates" with her on the other board have made an impact!  :lol :lol :lol

Kinda reminds me of a  song by Styx back in '81. TMTOMH.  ;)

I misread "debates" as "diabetes". I felt bad for poor Mr Doe for a moment.

Oh my god. I'm so happy I popped into this thread.

Bravo, Captain! 

Faux-filleplage, I do not agree and want to hear more! ;D