Jeff Foskett speaks about leaving Brian's band and joining Mike's band

[Ray Lawlor]

One of the more, to me, disturbing things that has surfaced in this thread , unstated but certainly alluded to , is the underlying idea that Brian is not capable of touring at all without some kind of massive care giving; almost like he is an invalid ; that he requires a "caretaker".  This is not only grossly unfair but it is patently not true. To me , a "caretaker" is required when someone is physically incapable of helping themselves ; or are incapacitated.

Ray, I can understand why you would feel this way. But, respectfully, I'm not sure that people view Brian as an invalid, as needing massive care, or being incapacitated. Yes, we are aware of Brian's problems, and the strides he has made in dealing with them. However, while he has made tremendous improvement, he is not cured. Some - or many, actually - might feel that Brian needs a "right hand man/woman/whatever" to keep him from doing some very adverse and harmful things to himself. That is what separates Brian and/or his "right hand men" from others...not all, but most.

Sheriff;

I must say that Brian is certainly not self destructive at this stage of the game and hasn't been for decades. He no longer smokes, eschews drugs, won't even have a beer any longer (too bad !). About the only thing that I can say he has a will power issue is with food; although he has been watching it now for several months and has dropped quite a bit of weight. As far as ever being cured ; there is no cure; there is only management and life quality improvement.    

[Peter Reum]

I will say what no one thus far has said.....Thank you Jeff Foskett for all the years you gave Brian, musically and personally. My best wishes to you and your family in the years to come.

[Heywood]

I'll second that Peter, and thank Jeff as well for all the stuff he has helped with over the years. I know there are a bunch of people who were in a pub in Sydney a few years ago that will be forever grateful.

[donald]

I will say what no one thus far has said.....Thank you Jeff Foskett for all the years you gave Brian, musically and personally. My best wishes to you and your family in the years to come.

well said Peter.   I have watched Jeff over several BW's tours and actually interacted with Jeff and watched him offer direction and support as needed.   Not to say BW needed a minder but just a trusted confidant and rock of a guy at his side as he negotiated the sometimes confusing and stressful aspects of performing and touring.   I don't think for a minute JF abandoned or bailed on BW by taking another position in the BB organization.   JF may still be the biggest BB fan of all.

[RangeRoverA1]

I'll second that Peter, and thank Jeff as well for all the stuff he has helped with over the years. I know there are a bunch of people who were in a pub in Sydney a few years ago that will be forever grateful.

Yes, Mr. Reum ftw, nice sentiment. And nice gesture from Jeff, I do remember that story.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

One of the more, to me, disturbing things that has surfaced in this thread , unstated but certainly alluded to , is the underlying idea that Brian is not capable of touring at all without some kind of massive care giving; almost like he is an invalid ; that he requires a "caretaker".  This is not only grossly unfair but it is patently not true. To me , a "caretaker" is required when someone is physically incapable of helping themselves ; or are incapacitated.

Ray, I can understand why you would feel this way. But, respectfully, I'm not sure that people view Brian as an invalid, as needing massive care, or being incapacitated. Yes, we are aware of Brian's problems, and the strides he has made in dealing with them. However, while he has made tremendous improvement, he is not cured. Some - or many, actually - might feel that Brian needs a "right hand man/woman/whatever" to keep him from doing some very adverse and harmful things to himself. That is what separates Brian and/or his "right hand men" from others...not all, but most.

Sheriff;

I must say that Brian is certainly not self destructive at this stage of the game and hasn't been for decades. He no longer smokes, eschews drugs, won't even have a beer any longer (too bad !). About the only thing that I can say he has a will power issue is with food; although he has been watching it now for several months and has dropped quite a bit of weight. As far as ever being cured ; there is no cure; there is only management and life quality improvement.   

I remember a few years ago Brian saying something about enjoying 'salmon and a cold beer' or something along those lines. Has he quit completely these days?

Glad to know he's dropped some weight; as someone who also has back troubles and fluctuating weight, I know first-hand extra girth can make the back pain much worse.

[Pretty Funky]

Hi Ray. Thanks again for the great post. I also used the caregiver word but I guess in an uneducated way. We fans only get to see the stage Brian and to be honest, it does look a challenge. For that reason most of us assume off-stage he is pretty much the same kind of guy. Rightfully, his down time is his own and private but I guess it can create speculation among us. Please don't mistake that for anything else but concern for the big guy. Hey if he is fine and dandy skipping castle visits (you've seen one...you've seen em all!) but at peace with himself, that's all that matters.

[guitarfool2002]

Hi Ray. Thanks again for the great post. I also used the caregiver word but I guess in an uneducated way. We fans only get to see the stage Brian and to be honest, it does look a challenge. For that reason most of us assume off-stage he is pretty much the same kind of guy. Rightfully, his down time is his own and private but I guess it can create speculation among us. Please don't mistake that for anything else but concern for the big guy. Hey if he is fine and dandy skipping castle visits (you've seen one...you've seen em all!) but at peace with himself, that's all that matters.

The parts in bold, if more fans took this into consideration there would be much less of, well...whatever you want to call the assumptions and speculations about Brian and other artists/public figures that get thrown around like confetti sometimes.

It's something that most if not all of us share, the fact that we tend to act a little differently in work or professional situations than we do while having a few beers with and old friend, or simply relaxing with family. Or, we simply enter a different mental zone when we're doing things like recording music or playing a live show than we have when we're eating breakfast at home. It's a situational thing, and what gets celebrities and athletes into trouble in the Twitter/Facebook/Instagram universe is when they start using shop talk and seem to forget it's going out to several million followers on social media.

[Emdeeh]

I will say what no one thus far has said.....Thank you Jeff Foskett for all the years you gave Brian, musically and personally. My best wishes to you and your family in the years to come.

Peter, well-put indeed -- I totally agree.

[Nicko1234]

Nicko 1234 -- I wish I could help you more. You seem to have a really hard time dotting i’s and crossing t’s. I can’t do that for you. I can tell you about facts that I’ve learned, and my perception and opinion of them. To dismiss something because you can’t understand "why" has more to do with how you're wired than the idea that I’m purposely keeping a secret from you, or trying to lie to you. I suggest maybe you start to do your own research regarding the current machinations of the group. That might ease your frustration and get you the answers you need.

Well why don`t you then?

This is a genuine question as you haven`t mentioned any facts in this thread. You`ve made statements as if they were facts but that is not the same thing. At all.

Nice for you to comment on `how I`m wired` but I would have to be suffering from bipolar disorder to immediately believe everything posted on the board as there are so many different opinions floating around (which is only to be expected). It`s not exactly asking a lot for somebody to back up their comments with...well anything at all.

I was interested in one comment that you made in this thread that does have some seemingly factual information though:

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Are you still referring to the BB F&F shows here because this begs two questions...

1, Were they really only playing 200 seat venues?
2, And if the audiences were as pitiful as you are suggesting, then surely that brand name was of no worth anyway...

[Cam Mott]

Nicko 1234 -- I wish I could help you more. You seem to have a really hard time dotting i’s and crossing t’s. I can’t do that for you. I can tell you about facts that I’ve learned, and my perception and opinion of them. To dismiss something because you can’t understand "why" has more to do with how you're wired than the idea that I’m purposely keeping a secret from you, or trying to lie to you. I suggest maybe you start to do your own research regarding the current machinations of the group. That might ease your frustration and get you the answers you need.

Well why don`t you then?

This is a genuine question as you haven`t mentioned any facts in this thread. You`ve made statements as if they were facts but that is not the same thing. At all.

Nice for you to comment on `how I`m wired` but I would have to be suffering from bipolar disorder to immediately believe everything posted on the board as there are so many different opinions floating around (which is only to be expected). It`s not exactly asking a lot for somebody to back up their comments with...well anything at all.

I was interested in one comment that you made in this thread that does have some seemingly factual information though:

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Are you still referring to the BB F&F shows here because this begs two questions...

1, Were they really only playing 200 seat venues?
2, And if the audiences were as pitiful as you are suggesting, then surely that brand name was of no worth anyway...

Shame on BRI for not being more proactive in protecting it's brand, license, and licensee.

[Howie Edelson]

Nicko, man.

I try to be as forthcoming and honest about stuff I know as often as I can. It can’t always be as case of “Why?!” “Oh, because A, B and C.” Read AGD’s posts about passing information and the repercussions of revealing sources and all the information one knows. I don’t come here to bullish it with the gang about fantasy LP track listings and favorite facial hair eras — just as I don’t come here to pass along fake info to boast or boost my ego. This band is a fascinating example of love and hate and shifting allegiances with both rewards and swift punishments. A lot of cruelty involved to produce something so beautiful. I think I’ve been pretty open about all I can when I can. To call me out on not doing so is uncool and incorrect. You wanna find out the truth about this band? Quit posting on a message board with a pretend name and go work with and/or for them. You not only will get all of your questions answered but you'll understand why you can't explain it in detail to a massive anonymous group of people who wanna know.

[HeyJude]

Are you still referring to the BB F&F shows here because this begs two questions...

1, Were they really only playing 200 seat venues?
2, And if the audiences were as pitiful as you are suggesting, then surely that brand name was of no worth anyway...

I can’t speak for Howie, but I will say that it is starting to seem as though something *else* has been going on with clamping down on how shows are billed/advertised. Much more recently than the “BBFF” stuff from 15 years ago.

We’re seeing strong implications, based on a few Al interviews and some other reports from the last year or so, that someone is contesting or at least inquiring or warning, or something, how Brian and Al’s shows have been advertised, and perhaps other Al gigs. We really don’t have visibility to everything that might be going on behind the scenes. We really only have visibility to when actual lawsuits are filed that become public record. But if lawyers are sending letters warning against billing shows certain ways, threatening potential lawsuits, we never get to see that.

It’s sounding like Brian and Al may have been warned off from emphasizing being “Beach Boys” in advertising their shows. As we’ve discussed in the past, it’s a VERY grey area when it comes to billing and advertising shows. Neither the “Brian and Al” shows (often if not usually sold as simply “Brian Wilson” shows) nor Al’s off-shoot shows use the “Beach Boys” in their band names.

I think Howie’s point *may* have been that, in a scenario where Al Jardine plays a solo gig as “Al Jardine’s Endless Summer Band” or whatever, and in press materials it mentions that he is an original Beach Boy, and he’s playing a street fair with a few hundred people watching, and he continues to get “warning” letters just offering him the “helpful reminder” to not over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” aspect (it can sometimes get into the minutiae of the size of the lettering on posters, the number of times “original Beach Boy” is mentioned, etc.), then things like *that* would be much more identifiable as being about power and revenge than “protecting a trademark.” But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

[Howie Edelson]

Well said, Hey Jude.

[guitarfool2002]

Let me restate a point I tried to make a few pages ago, which "Hey Jude" brought up again, and which may have gotten lost in my wordiness. 

Going back to the "Family And Friends" ordeal: Yes, there was a bigger issue about paying the fee-slash-royalty, but at the same time it seemed to get into parsing words, dotting the I's and crossing the T's, and any manner of legal wrangling to try to shut Al out of using the notion that he in fact was and is an original Beach Boys band member in order to tour.

The notion that Al's bookings were in some way going to cause confusion among fans, if not diminish or affect the image of the "trademark" *still* sounds absurd to me over a decade later. And in retrospect, it still sounds more vindictive and more of a show of force or some perceived "power" than it seems to be a genuine legal concern or a notion of guarding the legacy.

It felt like the efforts were designed to stick it to Al and almost strip him of his status as a Beach Boy, no matter the quality of the shows or the way they were being billed. The fact that the legal ins and outs of it had Al basically having to file claims against himself as a member of BRI in order to move forward was another irony in a pathetic situation.

The whole thing did in fact feel like a power grab, still does.

[filledeplage]

Nicko 1234 -- I wish I could help you more. You seem to have a really hard time dotting i’s and crossing t’s. I can’t do that for you. I can tell you about facts that I’ve learned, and my perception and opinion of them. To dismiss something because you can’t understand "why" has more to do with how you're wired than the idea that I’m purposely keeping a secret from you, or trying to lie to you. I suggest maybe you start to do your own research regarding the current machinations of the group. That might ease your frustration and get you the answers you need.

Well why don`t you then?

This is a genuine question as you haven`t mentioned any facts in this thread. You`ve made statements as if they were facts but that is not the same thing. At all.

Nice for you to comment on `how I`m wired` but I would have to be suffering from bipolar disorder to immediately believe everything posted on the board as there are so many different opinions floating around (which is only to be expected). It`s not exactly asking a lot for somebody to back up their comments with...well anything at all.

I was interested in one comment that you made in this thread that does have some seemingly factual information though:

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Are you still referring to the BB F&F shows here because this begs two questions...

1, Were they really only playing 200 seat venues?
2, And if the audiences were as pitiful as you are suggesting, then surely that brand name was of no worth anyway...

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

I'd like to know where the 200 seat venues are so I can go.  

And, thanks to Ray Lawlor for his excellent job description.  Makes perfect sense for a "detail" person to be with any entertainer to free them up for what they do best!

[HeyJude]

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

[filledeplage]

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

The entities are set up "in writing" to "make money."  It is the "rough and tumble" of the Music Industry. 

It has little to do with factions.  And it isn't "maneuvering" as I see it, I think very objectively.  It is merely enumerating the rules of the road. 

[guitarfool2002]

The issue of releasing a Beach Boys album in all this is related, but at the same time it's something of a red herring too, because - unless I'm wrong - one of the conditions that I think both labels who would release such an album and fans who would buy such an album is that Brian Wilson be involved in making that record. For what I believe has been the case for nearly every recording contract the Boys have had with a major label going back to the Warner/Reprise negotiations around 1970, Brian's involvement has been a condition of those contracts. I think the only album where that wasn't a requirement and where Brian specifically was not involved in recording the new songs was Summer In Paradise, and that is still one of the biggest stiffs in the band's history.

TWGMTR would not have come out on Capitol without Brian, so adding in a scenario of a "Beach Boys" album project without him involved, even forgetting about all of the legal issues behind doing so, is a scenario that likely wouldn't happen perhaps even if it could.

And, just opinion here, if the legal maneuvers could somehow open the door for a "Beach Boys" album that deliberately or obviously does not include Brian's contributions, the fans would more than likely reject it out of hand.

[HeyJude]

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

The entities are set up "in writing" to "make money."  It is the "rough and tumble" of the Music Industry.  

It has little to do with factions.  And it isn't "maneuvering" as I see it, I think very objectively.  It is merely enumerating the rules of the road.  

This is exactly how I would argue it as well if I were Mike Love’s legal team, and how I would answer questions about these issues if I were Mike Love. I mean that seriously. I wouldn’t fault a legal team being employed for this purpose to make these arguments.

But that has little to do with discussing the *possibility* or *probability* of how revenge and ugliness and politics and factions can inform and motivate legal action.

Just reading the publicly-available court documents (talking about ALL of them, not any one suit or subset of members), they often DRIP with bruised egos, pettiness, and revenge, and that’s the actual stuff they put in writing! That’s not even getting into what could possibly be rolling around in their heads, or what is discussed with legal teams behind closed doors.

Yes, I’ve seen many discussions between clients and legal counsel involving civil actions. To suggest potential (or actual) civil actions taken to protect trademarks are a totally objective process that involves no revenge or pettiness and simply involves a textbook defense of a trademark is laughable.  

[filledeplage]

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

The entities are set up "in writing" to "make money."  It is the "rough and tumble" of the Music Industry.  

It has little to do with factions.  And it isn't "maneuvering" as I see it, I think very objectively.  It is merely enumerating the rules of the road.  

This is exactly how I would argue it as well if I were Mike Love’s legal team, and how I would answer questions about these issues if I were Mike Love. I mean that seriously. I wouldn’t fault a legal team being employed for this purpose to make these arguments.

But that has little to do with discussing the *possibility* or *probability* of how revenge and ugliness and politics and factions can inform and motivate legal action.

Just reading the publicly-available court documents (talking about ALL of them, not any one suit or subset of members), they often DRIP with bruised egos, pettiness, and revenge, and that’s the actual stuff they put in writing! That’s not even getting into what could possibly be rolling around in their heads, or what is discussed with legal teams behind closed doors.

Yes, I’ve seen many discussions between clients and legal counsel involving civil actions. To suggest potential (or actual) civil actions taken to protect trademarks are a totally objective process that involves no revenge or pettiness and simply involves a textbook defense of a trademark is laughable.  

One could only hope that if you were on Brian's legal team that it would be objective, fact-driven and specific.

And represent his position zealously.   That is the job of the lawyer.

[Nicko1234]

Nicko, man.

I try to be as forthcoming and honest about stuff I know as often as I can. It can’t always be as case of “Why?!” “Oh, because A, B and C.” Read AGD’s posts about passing information and the repercussions of revealing sources and all the information one knows. I don’t come here to bullish it with the gang about fantasy LP track listings and favorite facial hair eras — just as I don’t come here to pass along fake info to boast or boost my ego. This band is a fascinating example of love and hate and shifting allegiances with both rewards and swift punishments. A lot of cruelty involved to produce something so beautiful. I think I’ve been pretty open about all I can when I can. To call me out on not doing so is uncool and incorrect. You wanna find out the truth about this band? Quit posting on a message board with a pretend name and go work with and/or for them. You not only will get all of your questions answered but you'll understand why you can't explain it in detail to a massive anonymous group of people who wanna know.

I can completely understand all of that and my comments now are meant to be constructive and positive and I hope they will all be taken in the spirit they are intended.

Now in this thread you have given many very strongly worded opinions on a couple of issues and have painted things in a very black and white way. Mike and Jeff are both entirely consumed by vengeance, Scott Totten rescued Mike`s reputation (presumably because the touring band was in such a poor shape before that under Chris Farmer), Al has been forced to perform at pitiful venues in front of one man and his dog etc.

Now obviously in your profession I am sure that you come across plenty of info and of course you can`t post it all on a message board. But I personally find that these very black and white statements very difficult to accept as 100% `facts` because life is all about shades of grey. Even if they are all 99.9% true then they are still not facts...

Take the Al/BB F&F situation for example. Now your first post about that seemed to come from nowhere in this thread and was obviously very emotive. Now I should say that Al, if push comes to shove, is probably my favourite of the remaining Beach Boys. I really wanted him to be successful after 1998 and I was even one of he hardy few who joined his fan club and still have the membership card in the drawer somewhere to prove it! Now was Mike motivated partly by power and revenge? I have no doubt that he was. His feelings about Al at that time are well known.

But was it also right that Al was banned from touring using the BB F&F name? Yeah, I think undeniably it was. The judges (and appeal judges) all thought so and Al really didn`t have a leg to stand on. The fact that the other members of BRI didn`t vote to let him use the name indicates that this wasn`t solely a revenge thing. Shades of grey...

As for the Jeff/Melinda thing. I can completely believe that this could be one of Jeff`s motivations. But you have implied that revenge is by far his primary motivating factor and that he is devoting months of his year doing a job in order to stick it to her. Now this is more difficult to simply take as a `fact` and as it paints both Jeff and Melinda in a very poor light it wouldn`t really feel right to do so unquestioningly. Shades of grey again...

I hope that makes sense and, as mentioned previously, is meant with the utmost respect.

[Nicko1234]

I can’t speak for Howie, but I will say that it is starting to seem as though something *else* has been going on with clamping down on how shows are billed/advertised. Much more recently than the “BBFF” stuff from 15 years ago.

We’re seeing strong implications, based on a few Al interviews and some other reports from the last year or so, that someone is contesting or at least inquiring or warning, or something, how Brian and Al’s shows have been advertised, and perhaps other Al gigs. We really don’t have visibility to everything that might be going on behind the scenes. We really only have visibility to when actual lawsuits are filed that become public record. But if lawyers are sending letters warning against billing shows certain ways, threatening potential lawsuits, we never get to see that.

It’s sounding like Brian and Al may have been warned off from emphasizing being “Beach Boys” in advertising their shows. As we’ve discussed in the past, it’s a VERY grey area when it comes to billing and advertising shows. Neither the “Brian and Al” shows (often if not usually sold as simply “Brian Wilson” shows) nor Al’s off-shoot shows use the “Beach Boys” in their band names.

I think Howie’s point *may* have been that, in a scenario where Al Jardine plays a solo gig as “Al Jardine’s Endless Summer Band” or whatever, and in press materials it mentions that he is an original Beach Boy, and he’s playing a street fair with a few hundred people watching, and he continues to get “warning” letters just offering him the “helpful reminder” to not over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” aspect (it can sometimes get into the minutiae of the size of the lettering on posters, the number of times “original Beach Boy” is mentioned, etc.), then things like *that* would be much more identifiable as being about power and revenge than “protecting a trademark.” But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

That`s entirely understandable but it is obviously a different issue from the BB F&F affair. A connected one certainly but nothing like as important.

[Nicko1234]

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

Possibly but I doubt whether most people are that black or white about things.

I am sure there are plenty of people who can say:

`Al not being able to tour as BB F&F wasn`t only about power and revenge`.

Who can also say:

`Power and revenge were involved to some extent`.

[DonnyL]

I think we could all benefit from taking a step back and trying to see this situation from all angles.

I think Mike's position is pretty solid and consistent. I think it's pretty clear Mike does genuinely believe he is protecting the 'brand' -- i.e., the commercial reputation of 'The Beach Boys' being presented in a certain way (being particular about set lists, etc.). Whether we personally agree with how he presents the brand or not is another issue I'd say. But he has been given the right to make these decisions, and I think he takes them seriously.

There are laws regarding 'public confusion'. I saw an Al show around 2002, and it was essentially being billed as 'The Beach Boys' for all intents and purposes. Yes, that wasn't the 'official' moniker, but people tend to get these things muddied up pretty easily. I don't think it's out of line for Mike's or the group's legal team to try to put a stop to it. It would be pretty easy to see how this could affect bookings and revenues if 'The Beach Boys' came to town just after some other variation of 'The Beach Boys' had just played.

Let's face it, there are two 'Beach Boys': The Sunkist commercial, fun-in-the-sun Beach-Ball version, and the 'Pet Sounds'/serious art version. Mike represents the former, and Brian represents the latter. Unfortunately, Al is generally only a supporting player in either version (in the public's view ... in my mind, he's the group's secret weapan, and absolutely essential to their authentic sound). Mike's version is way more popular and recognizable, no matter how many smart and hip people name check 'Pet Sounds' and call it the best record of all time. I think Mike has come a long way in appreciating the artistic version in his presentation. C50 brought it all together in a beautiful way.

There's no denying that Al got shafted after Carl died, and 'The Beach Boys' as a brand took a huge hit. But I think we're being one-dimensional to say that it's Mike's fault and there weren't interpersonal dynamics that lead to the situation becoming what it was.

I would love nothing more than the group to reunite and get back together. And, I think they will at some point. I don't think things are as tense between the actual members as people make them out to be. Mike has invited both David and Al to play shows with 'The Beach Boys'. Who knows if Brian has been invited?

Maybe it is indeed in Mike's nature to control his environment. I don't doubt it at all. Lots of people are like that (I've mentioned the Enneagram before, and I believe Mike is a type 8 ... it goes a long way in understanding where people are coming from ... their motivations and fears). That doesn't mean that he's not willing to compromise and work something out with the others ... I mean, C50 came together in the first place, and that seemed so unlikely based on the 'conventional wisdom' of the time.

Based on everything I've read, it seems like Mike is concerned about Brian and cares about him ... and this factored into whatever decisions he's made with regarding to ending C50. I don't think Mike is going to sling too much $hit in the media. There are probably many other things he could say that would make his position stronger, but he's holding it back. I think it's silly of us to paint this picture as a black & white good guy/bad guy thing. Surely, there are egos involved ... and sure, it's probably much easier for Mike to go back to what he's always done. But that doesn't mean that ego is the only reason or even the chief reason.