Beach Boys Pile Up In California

[Cam Mott]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

[guitarfool2002]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

That's a moot point. None of these issues relevant to this discussion or "licenses" were relevant or even a consideration legally or practically before Carl's passing.

[HeyJude]

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license.  

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  

[Cam Mott]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

That's a moot point. None of these issues relevant to this discussion or "licenses" were relevant or even a consideration legally or practically before Carl's passing.

Why is that?

[HeyJude]

I wasn't going to add anything more to this, but I guess I can't help myself.  

My thought is a pretty simple one, again when I hinted at it a few nights ago someone posted that perhaps it is too simple for the situations at hand, and I sadly agree.

Consider if the same standards were applied to any current or future naming issues regarding bands and tours that apply to official releases of recordings. There are no gray areas regarding an album release labeled "The Beach Boys", or any new music or recordings under that name. The only "Beach Boys" album releases since Carl's passing have had all or nearly all original or semi-original band members participating. Not counting the reissues and box sets, the only so-called "new" Beach Boys albums have had Brian, Mike, Al, David, Bruce on those tracks to varying degrees of participation. There is no gray area, nor is there a chance of anything less than that group of musicians releasing anything on their own minus the others and calling it a "Beach Boys album".

That's a good thing. When there have been individual releases, going back to NASCAR, even that cover was not labeled "The Beach Boys", it was labeled "of the Beach Boys" or "Beach Boys'..." etc, not suggesting fans were buying a Beach Boys album because they're not all there on the tracks. The promotions can say "of the Beach Boys", "Founding member of the Beach Boys", "original Beach Boys member" etc, but anything less than a collective group participation is not and cannot be called "The Beach Boys".

That's painfully simple, right? It clears everything up for fans. When the new album came out in 2012, followed by the live album, it was crystal clear that this was The Beach Boys on that record, with the membership you'd expect to hear on a Beach Boys record.

Now it's just my opinion, also in retrospect, but why was that strict naming and labeling standard applied to new recordings and releases but not applied similarly to current or future live tours?

The simplest point could be any band member could tour as a member of the Beach Boys, but like the album releases or DVD's or whatever, without a specific participation of band members, it would not be specific as "this is the 'official' Beach Boys" you're going to see play live. And Al, Mike, Brian, David, Bruce, etc could basically share equal billing on their touring activities (if they wanted) as they earned the right to do as members of the band.

Opinions like that are a dime a dozen, they don't mean much in terms of reality, but it's still something to consider for discussion.

Unfortunately, your examples of labeling things like CDs are not even always "painfully simple."

Among other things, lawsuits can arise over the *size* of the verbiage. You can have "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks of" in very small lettering and then "THE BEACH BOYS" in much larger lettering. And that may or may not be something others will take issue with or sue over.

Also, *use* of a trademark isn't always clear cut. If you put a CD out and just put "The Beach Boys", or sell tickets as "The Beach Boys", that's clear cut.

But courts ruled Al having "Beach Boys" within the name of his own band was infringing on the trademark.

So would a CD titled "Al Jardine of the BEACH BOYS, and his Family and Friends Band" be allowed?

"Beatlefest" had to change their name, after 25 years or something, to "The Fest for Beatles Fans." So sometimes you can use a trademark if the use is very descriptive.

Touring only adds several extra layers of potential for things to be screwed up, because promoters and venues will start fudging (either out of ineptitude or deceit) how a band is billed.

[Cam Mott]

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license.  

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  

We will continue to disagree.

[Robbie Mac]

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license.  

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  

We will continue to disagree.

Way to keep an open mind!

What would it take for you to come to some sort of consensus, if not change your stance on this, Cam? What proof does Hey Jude, Mr. Edelson and Jon Stebbins have to give you?

[bgas]

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license.  

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  

We will continue to disagree.

Way to keep an open mind!

What would it take for you to come to some sort of consensus, if not change your stance on this, Cam? What proof does Hey Jude, Mr. Edelson and Jon Stebbins have to give you?

You simply don't get it. Cam will NEVER change. Mike can do no wrong in the eye(s) of Cam

[SMiLE Brian]

And that's all Bgas wrote!

[guitarfool2002]

I wasn't going to add anything more to this, but I guess I can't help myself.  

My thought is a pretty simple one, again when I hinted at it a few nights ago someone posted that perhaps it is too simple for the situations at hand, and I sadly agree.

Consider if the same standards were applied to any current or future naming issues regarding bands and tours that apply to official releases of recordings. There are no gray areas regarding an album release labeled "The Beach Boys", or any new music or recordings under that name. The only "Beach Boys" album releases since Carl's passing have had all or nearly all original or semi-original band members participating. Not counting the reissues and box sets, the only so-called "new" Beach Boys albums have had Brian, Mike, Al, David, Bruce on those tracks to varying degrees of participation. There is no gray area, nor is there a chance of anything less than that group of musicians releasing anything on their own minus the others and calling it a "Beach Boys album".

That's a good thing. When there have been individual releases, going back to NASCAR, even that cover was not labeled "The Beach Boys", it was labeled "of the Beach Boys" or "Beach Boys'..." etc, not suggesting fans were buying a Beach Boys album because they're not all there on the tracks. The promotions can say "of the Beach Boys", "Founding member of the Beach Boys", "original Beach Boys member" etc, but anything less than a collective group participation is not and cannot be called "The Beach Boys".

That's painfully simple, right? It clears everything up for fans. When the new album came out in 2012, followed by the live album, it was crystal clear that this was The Beach Boys on that record, with the membership you'd expect to hear on a Beach Boys record.

Now it's just my opinion, also in retrospect, but why was that strict naming and labeling standard applied to new recordings and releases but not applied similarly to current or future live tours?

The simplest point could be any band member could tour as a member of the Beach Boys, but like the album releases or DVD's or whatever, without a specific participation of band members, it would not be specific as "this is the 'official' Beach Boys" you're going to see play live. And Al, Mike, Brian, David, Bruce, etc could basically share equal billing on their touring activities (if they wanted) as they earned the right to do as members of the band.

Opinions like that are a dime a dozen, they don't mean much in terms of reality, but it's still something to consider for discussion.

Unfortunately, your examples of labeling things like CDs are not even always "painfully simple."

Among other things, lawsuits can arise over the *size* of the verbiage. You can have "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks of" in very small lettering and then "THE BEACH BOYS" in much larger lettering. And that may or may not be something others will take issue with or sue over.

Also, *use* of a trademark isn't always clear cut. If you put a CD out and just put "The Beach Boys", or sell tickets as "The Beach Boys", that's clear cut.

But courts ruled Al having "Beach Boys" within the name of his own band was infringing on the trademark.

So would a CD titled "Al Jardine of the BEACH BOYS, and his Family and Friends Band" be allowed?

"Beatlefest" had to change their name, after 25 years or something, to "The Fest for Beatles Fans." So sometimes you can use a trademark if the use is very descriptive.

Touring only adds several extra layers of potential for things to be screwed up, because promoters and venues will start fudging (either out of ineptitude or deceit) how a band is billed.

It is painfully simple with The Beach Boys as of 2014 and through the previous decade-plus of their activities, and honestly I don't know why I'm being called on to clarify that.

It's as simple as the fact that nothing can be released as a Beach Boys album without very strict guidelines being met, call them restrictions if you will. There is no middle ground, there is no fudging, there is no gray area there. Let me emphasize, nothing can be labeled as "The Beach Boys" on a new album or single without those restrictions.

My point, which I'll make for the last time so it doesn't get lost in arguing, is that a situation similar to how the NASCAR album or anything related that may have been considered had to be amended with an asterisk of sorts to prevent that album from being sold as or even considered a "Beach Boys" album, as the specifics were not in place to call it that. In 2012 those specifics were in place for two new, non-archival releases, and thus exists a new Beach Boys studio album and a new Beach Boys live album with *no question* as to who is or isn't involved from the band. None whatsoever.

It's simple. My issue: Too bad that when the plans and agreement were drawn up for licensing the name in touring or performance situations and bookings/promotion, it wasn't weighted or negotiated the same way. That's in retrospect, naturally. But those restrictions on naming an album of new music certainly avoided the potential for one or two members to decide to release an album of new music and have fans faced with seeing something other than a legitimate album from the full Beach Boys, as we got in 2012.

No confusion = simple. Painfully simple, actually.

But maybe it is in fact too simple.

[CenturyDeprived]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

That's a moot point. None of these issues relevant to this discussion or "licenses" were relevant or even a consideration legally or practically before Carl's passing.

Why is that?

I can't think of any other reason other than the board members (other than Mike) decided post '98 that the Beach Boys as a recording entity are worthy of a certain level of quality control, or should be treated in a way that doesn't let the name get dragged down in a manner that tarnishes the brand name. This must have been thought by voters as the option that would benefit the brand name most in the big picture.

That's not to say that the band has never released embarrassing product under the name, but perhaps was this a reaction to Summer in Paradise? (Which, I might add, I genuinely like about 1/3 of as a guilty pleasure).

I have to think that if Mike were allowed to use the Beach Boys name to record new material under, he would at some point post 1998 have done so, don't you think? The only way I think he wouldn't have done so is if he thought there was no way he was going to write new material with Brian again, and was thus not holding out hope for that; if he really thought writing with Brian again would not ever again happen, but he had the legal right to record new "Beach Boys" music, no doubt in my mind we'd have more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums post 1998.

I'm guessing that Mike never pushed or deeply sought out the legal right to have the right to the recording name (which he probably also wouldn't have seen as a cash cow), but quite the opposite for the touring name, which was/is a cash cow, and which Mike wanted control of.

I think Brian and Carl's estate think of the touring name as easy money, and were at the time of voting willing to let Mike have his way for that reason. It must have been decided that the legacy tarnishing potential of the M&B show was relatively speaking less (or not worth the financial sacrifice of retiring), as opposed to the legacy tarnishing potential of more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums.

Either that, or Brian always had a vision for, even in the fractured post 1998 time period, eventually wanting to have creative control of another "Beach Boys" album.

I can't really see any other logic in it.

[HeyJude]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

That's a moot point. None of these issues relevant to this discussion or "licenses" were relevant or even a consideration legally or practically before Carl's passing.

Why is that?

I can't think of any other reason other than the board members (other than Mike) decided post '98 that the Beach Boys as a recording entity are worthy of a certain level of quality control, or should be treated in a way that doesn't let the name get dragged down in a manner that tarnishes the brand name. This must have been thought by voters as the option that would benefit the brand name most in the big picture.

That's not to say that the band has never released embarrassing product under the name, but perhaps was this a reaction to Summer in Paradise? (Which, I might add, I genuinely like about 1/3 of as a guilty pleasure).

I have to think that if Mike were allowed to use the Beach Boys name to record new material under, he would at some point post 1998 have done so, don't you think? The only way I think he wouldn't have done so is if he thought there was no way he was going to write new material with Brian again, and was thus not holding out hope for that; if he really thought writing with Brian again would not ever again happen, but he had the legal right to record new "Beach Boys" music, no doubt in my mind we'd have more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums post 1998.

I'm guessing that Mike never pushed or deeply sought out the legal right to have the right to the recording name (which he probably also wouldn't have seen as a cash cow), but quite the opposite for the touring name, which was/is a cash cow, and which Mike wanted control of.

I think Brian and Carl's estate think of the touring name as easy money, and were at the time of voting willing to let Mike have his way for that reason. It must have been decided that the legacy tarnishing potential of the M&B show was relatively speaking less (or not worth the financial sacrifice of retiring), as opposed to the legacy tarnishing potential of more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums.

Either that, or Brian always had a vision for, even in the fractured post 1998 time period, eventually wanting to have creative control of another "Beach Boys" album.

I can't really see any other logic in it.

I would think it's mostly down to the idea that Mike was largely only concerned with the touring band. Even by the 80's they seemed largely disinterested in being a "recording artist" that also tours. They turned into a live act that also occasionally did studio work, and even more rarely released it.

A lot of things were mutually convenient. They were less interested in releasing albums while their album sales declined and labels were less interested in signing them. Mike probably wasn't interested in cutting Beach Boys albums on his own under license, and BRI may well have decided against that even if Mike had wanted that. The touring situation is far easier in so many ways: A cleaner source of revenue. A proven source of revenue. It doesn't involve a bunch of creative debates; it's about performing old songs. The infrastructure was and is there.

It doesn't appear Mike is super interested in studio work with or without the other Beach Boys. As with Al, Mike surely could have released a solo album himself. He could have got "Mike Love Not War" up on CD Baby a decade ago.

[guitarfool2002]

CenturyDeprived: In a word, "simple".    

If the same standards had been applied to the naming issues of tours and performances as had been applied to the recordings post-1998 or so, we'd have none of these conversations. If the same allowances and guidelines had been applied to touring shows, any original band member would be able to bill his band as an "original member" or something similar, while the "Beach Boys" would have been reserved for things like the 2012 album and C50 tour where the standards for releasing new music applied. All members would have a fair shot at using their earned status and reputation as an original member to book and promote shows if they did not want to tour as a group, and beyond that the marketplace could choose whose band to see, and it would separate the Beach Boys group identity from the members while not removing the association entirely, just like the albums. And the courts may have been far less involved than they have been regarding the name. That's about it. It did not go down that way, and the results are what they are in 2014.

[CenturyDeprived]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

That's a moot point. None of these issues relevant to this discussion or "licenses" were relevant or even a consideration legally or practically before Carl's passing.

Why is that?

I can't think of any other reason other than the board members (other than Mike) decided post '98 that the Beach Boys as a recording entity are worthy of a certain level of quality control, or should be treated in a way that doesn't let the name get dragged down in a manner that tarnishes the brand name. This must have been thought by voters as the option that would benefit the brand name most in the big picture.

That's not to say that the band has never released embarrassing product under the name, but perhaps was this a reaction to Summer in Paradise? (Which, I might add, I genuinely like about 1/3 of as a guilty pleasure).

I have to think that if Mike were allowed to use the Beach Boys name to record new material under, he would at some point post 1998 have done so, don't you think? The only way I think he wouldn't have done so is if he thought there was no way he was going to write new material with Brian again, and was thus not holding out hope for that; if he really thought writing with Brian again would not ever again happen, but he had the legal right to record new "Beach Boys" music, no doubt in my mind we'd have more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums post 1998.

I'm guessing that Mike never pushed or deeply sought out the legal right to have the right to the recording name (which he probably also wouldn't have seen as a cash cow), but quite the opposite for the touring name, which was/is a cash cow, and which Mike wanted control of.

I think Brian and Carl's estate think of the touring name as easy money, and were at the time of voting willing to let Mike have his way for that reason. It must have been decided that the legacy tarnishing potential of the M&B show was relatively speaking less (or not worth the financial sacrifice of retiring), as opposed to the legacy tarnishing potential of more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums.

Either that, or Brian always had a vision for, even in the fractured post 1998 time period, eventually wanting to have creative control of another "Beach Boys" album.

I can't really see any other logic in it.

I would think it's mostly down to the idea that Mike was largely only concerned with the touring band. Even by the 80's they seemed largely disinterested in being a "recording artist" that also tours. They turned into a live act that also occasionally did studio work, and even more rarely released it.

A lot of things were mutually convenient. They were less interested in releasing albums while their album sales declined and labels were less interested in signing them. Mike probably wasn't interested in cutting Beach Boys albums on his own under license, and BRI may well have decided against that even if Mike had wanted that. The touring situation is far easier in so many ways: A cleaner source of revenue. A proven source of revenue. It doesn't involve a bunch of creative debates; it's about performing old songs. The infrastructure was and is there.

It doesn't appear Mike is super interested in studio work with or without the other Beach Boys. As with Al, Mike surely could have released a solo album himself. He could have got "Mike Love Not War" up on CD Baby a decade ago.

I agree that Mike from the early 80s-on was less interested in new material. I suppose Summer in Paradise only even exists as a belated aftershock of the surprise success of Kokomo.

One must wonder, how differently would the BB story have unfolded if Kokomo never existed? Serious question. Because nearly every single interview from 1988 on has Mike bragging about Kokomo; it seems to have informed most every major decision or justification that Mike has done/said since its release.  

I guess it comes down again, as it always seems to, to Mike being tethered to idea of risk-aversion. I think Mike didn't put "Mike Love Not War" up on CD Baby a decade ago because such a release, even online-only, stood a mighty big chance of falling flat on its face.  I don't think he'd find anyone in the industry who would have advised him otherwise.   It wouldn't have been a big financial risk, but a risk of embarrassment that an entire album didn't do well; look at his reaction when "Looking Back with Love" was mentioned by Brian in the 1989 campfire video scene.

[Robbie Mac]

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license.  

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  

We will continue to disagree.

Way to keep an open mind!

What would it take for you to come to some sort of consensus, if not change your stance on this, Cam? What proof does Hey Jude, Mr. Edelson and Jon Stebbins have to give you?

You simply don't get it. Cam will NEVER change. Mike can do no wrong in the eye(s) of Cam

[Jon Stebbins]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

There really needs to be an episode of Mythbusters dedicated to the Beach Boys featuring Jon as a special guest host

[Cam Mott]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.

[Cam Mott]

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license.  

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  

We will continue to disagree.

Way to keep an open mind!

What would it take for you to come to some sort of consensus, if not change your stance on this, Cam? What proof does Hey Jude, Mr. Edelson and Jon Stebbins have to give you?

Thanks!

More than I've heard I guess.

[Cam Mott]

You simply don't get it. Cam will NEVER change. Mike can do no wrong in the eye(s) of Cam

Yeah but after all of these years I'm your loyal never-changing bonehead. (dimples)

[HeyJude]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.

The Beach Boys released eight albums at least through the end of 1964 (seven plus the live album), plus he was a regular member of the touring band (although missed dates varied from year to year) from mid-1976 through early-mid 1982. The band released five more albums during that time. Throw in "TWGMTR", and that's 14. Throw in the C50 live album and it's 15 albums where the band on the album matched the live lineup.

The overarching point is that most bands have not operated with the "studio" band and "live" band being such disparate entities to the point where two band members are licensing the use of the name solely for touring and can't and don't record albums, while three other members are still living.

For many years, the *only* difference between the "studio" and "live" band was Brian. In 2014, there's a HUGE difference. The live band exists, with two of five living members participating, and that same live band is legally prohibited from releasing any product under the "Beach Boys" name, as an indirect and direct consequence of that band not containing more original members.

The "studio" band, barring 2012, hasn't really existed in decades. Hence, odd situations like, are Brian and Al "former Beach Boys", or just "Beach Boys?" Depends on the definitions. That we have to add a bunch of modifiers and qualifiers is sad and pathetic.

[Nicko1234]

CenturyDeprived: In a word, "simple".    

If the same standards had been applied to the naming issues of tours and performances as had been applied to the recordings post-1998 or so, we'd have none of these conversations. If the same allowances and guidelines had been applied to touring shows, any original band member would be able to bill his band as an "original member" or something similar, while the "Beach Boys" would have been reserved for things like the 2012 album and C50 tour where the standards for releasing new music applied. All members would have a fair shot at using their earned status and reputation as an original member to book and promote shows if they did not want to tour as a group, and beyond that the marketplace could choose whose band to see, and it would separate the Beach Boys group identity from the members while not removing the association entirely, just like the albums. And the courts may have been far less involved than they have been regarding the name. That's about it. It did not go down that way, and the results are what they are in 2014.

That`s true if there had been a set style of name that they were limited to using.

I guess one reason this would have been less appealing is because BRI would have been getting far less money. And also because `of The Beach Boys` wouldn`t have anything like the selling power for these guys (as I think has been shown).

Obviously we are all influenced by our experiences with the group and personally I think that in the main things turned out positively in terms of the license.

Without The Beach Boys name Mike and Bruce would never have put on the shows they did in 2004 and 2008 where they played 50+ songs including some they had never done before (with Chris Farmer and Scott Totten both doing a great job with the music).

Brian obviously has had numerous highlights since 1998 and many more than we expected.

Al is certainly the one who has been left in the cold and it is a great shame that he hasn`t played more gigs. I think that has been partly down to his choice though.

And then we had the C50 tour and album.

Clearly there have been some disputes about the name for the last couple of years but I don`t think they should obscure all of the highlights there have been since 1998.

[Jon Stebbins]

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.

Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

[HeyJude]

CenturyDeprived: In a word, "simple".    

If the same standards had been applied to the naming issues of tours and performances as had been applied to the recordings post-1998 or so, we'd have none of these conversations. If the same allowances and guidelines had been applied to touring shows, any original band member would be able to bill his band as an "original member" or something similar, while the "Beach Boys" would have been reserved for things like the 2012 album and C50 tour where the standards for releasing new music applied. All members would have a fair shot at using their earned status and reputation as an original member to book and promote shows if they did not want to tour as a group, and beyond that the marketplace could choose whose band to see, and it would separate the Beach Boys group identity from the members while not removing the association entirely, just like the albums. And the courts may have been far less involved than they have been regarding the name. That's about it. It did not go down that way, and the results are what they are in 2014.

That`s true if there had been a set style of name that they were limited to using.

I guess one reason this would have been less appealing is because BRI would have been getting far less money. And also because `of The Beach Boys` wouldn`t have anything like the selling power for these guys (as I think has been shown).

Obviously we are all influenced by our experiences with the group and personally I think that in the main things turned out positively in terms of the license.

Without The Beach Boys name Mike and Bruce would never have put on the shows they did in 2004 and 2008 where they played 50+ songs including some they had never done before (with Chris Farmer and Scott Totten both doing a great job with the music).

Brian obviously has had numerous highlights since 1998 and many more than we expected.

Al is certainly the one who has been left in the cold and it is a great shame that he hasn`t played more gigs. I think that has been partly down to his choice though.

And then we had the C50 tour and album.

Clearly there have been some disputes about the name for the last couple of years but I don`t think they should obscure all of the highlights there have been since 1998.

The problem I have is when something is done as an exclusionary process. Much of what Mike has done with the "license" has been inherently exclusionary.

They didn't all break up and end up doing what they wanted to do. Articles back in 1998/99 specifically said that Mike did not want to appear on tour with Al (and also stated that Mike had at some point prior to Carl's death decided he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl either, "out of love" for him). That's okay; there are plenty of times when a band doesn't want to work together anymore. But their setup was not such that they could kick members out, at least corporate members. So instead the closest thing to that was undertaken. Basically break up, then reform without Al but continue to use the name. It is indeed effectively s**tcanning Al.

And that's not even getting into C50, which was even more *direct* exclusionary process. Back in 1998, Brian was disinterested and Al didn't appear to know exactly what he wanted to do. In 2012, it was crystal clear what everyone wanted to do. The move to go back to the "status quo" was directly exclusionary at that point.

[Nicko1234]

The problem I have is when something is done as an exclusionary process. Much of what Mike has done with the "license" has been inherently exclusionary.

They didn't all break up and end up doing what they wanted to do. Articles back in 1998/99 specifically said that Mike did not want to appear on tour with Al (and also stated that Mike had at some point prior to Carl's death decided he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl either, "out of love" for him). That's okay; there are plenty of times when a band doesn't want to work together anymore. But their setup was not such that they could kick members out, at least corporate members. So instead the closest thing to that was undertaken. Basically break up, then reform without Al but continue to use the name. It is indeed effectively s**tcanning Al.

And that's not even getting into C50, which was even more *direct* exclusionary process. Back in 1998, Brian was disinterested and Al didn't appear to know exactly what he wanted to do. In 2012, it was crystal clear what everyone wanted to do. The move to go back to the "status quo" was directly exclusionary at that point.

Well I can certainly understand the viewpoint that morally one member shouldn`t be touring as `The Beach Boys`.

But then that has to balanced against the physical reality of the fact that `Mike Love of The Beach Boys` would have been playing crappier venues with less interesting set lists and probably a worse band.

Now again this is where people`s personal experiences come into it. Those who haven`t enjoyed Mike and Bruce`s shows will say that would be no loss. But, perhaps because I have seen them at their best, I wouldn`t trade hearing Mike singing Here Today, David singing Forever, Bruce singing Disney Girls etc. for the aforementioned scenario.

Not to mention the fact that it seems like none of BRI supported the idea of the use of, `....of The Beach Boys` at that time.