The Smiley Smile Message Board

They have a business sense, though. If Brian and Al did that it would male them look so poorly.

To who?

I highly doubt the license will be taken from Mike. Maybe amended, but not taken.

If Brian and/or Al tries to revoke the license, they have to know that Mike will fight it, lawsuits will commence, and Mike would probably win. I mean, you better have valid grounds for wanting the license revoked. Hasn't Mike lived up to his part of the bargain when he was given the license via a vote? Has he does ANYTHING that has not complied with the agreement?

However, the main reason I CAN'T see the license taken away from Mike is a simple one - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If Brian and Al played it smart, they would allow Mike & Bruce to continue for what, another 5-6 years while they sit at home and collect a check. Or maybe I should ask that question; does Al get a percentage when he is not touring? Anyway, why ruin a good thing. Brian's been getting a check for NOT performing for 35 years or so. How long does Al expect this "reunion thing" to last anyway. The odds are that Mike & Bruce will outlast any other touring Beach Boys' configuration, especially one with Brian Wilson in it.

It's funny (actually it isn't) how Mike is the first to get labeled as money hungry. Yet, the whole license-giving to Mike - by Brian, Al, and Carl's estate - was motivated by one main thing. Making money from it.

I think these are some of the issues that some fans prefer to ignore.

For example, when Al was banned from touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends there was a lot of anti-Mike comment. What people forgot was that it was Al who was using the name without permission and that he wasn`t paying the other band members for it. The fact that money was a key issue for Brian (or his management) can be seen from the fact that he was happy to stop that band, which included his daughters, from touring.

Al has obviously been bitter in the past towards Mike but it must be said that Mike has done a very good, professional job with the touring outfit since 1998. Since then he has made Brian, Al and Carl`s estate an awful lot of money without them having to do anything so, as you`ve implied, it would be nuts for them to stop that now.

Well, maybe not for all of that time. Things did get dire for a while there, but he's picked it up recently -2008 onwards ish.

If Brian and/or Al tries to revoke the license, they have to know that Mike will fight it, lawsuits will commence, and Mike would probably win.

Why do you think that? I can't see anything that Mike could do if Brian, Al and Carl's estate vote for him not being able to tour under the name. What coul he sue them for?  ???

The 3-1 vote wasn't for Mike to tour as The Beach Boys, it was to establish the license that grants the name. As long as the terms of said license aren't revised and as long as he adheres to them, he can tour as The Beach Boys.

Over on the Bloo there's currently a mindless witch hunt to strip Mike of the right to tour as the BB, solely, as far as I can see, because he isn't Brian. Just when I think they can't get any stupider over there, they go and prove me wrong. I'm guessing if Brian had put out a press release stating that Mike, Alan, Bruce & David weren't touring with him post 9/28, he'd have got three cheers, the keys to the city and a Nobel Prize.

I'd think Brian is in a good spot...he's going to collect touring revenue from the Mike and Bruce Show AND he can still go out and do his own thing...with the possibility of still working with Mike and Bruce again.  Does Al have a similar agreement?  Does he collect a percentage of the touring band's revenue?  Dave kind of gets lost in the shuffle.  It's really sad that after all these years they just can't let it go.  Why does there still have to be so much drama?  It's really too bad.  It's a fine line in regards to the touring band.  Mike puts on a good show.  His current band is good.  It's a genuinely fun experience to catch him live...but is it the Beach Boys?  I remember the last time I saw them live pre-reunion and while I was having a great time (heck, it was summer...we were outside...and the crowd was really into it)...I couldn't help but think wow...Brian Wilson is not on stage.  Al Jardine is not on stage.  Carl and Dennis have both passed away.  It took a bit of the shine off of the evening for me.  Maybe the real question is what is their legacy worth?  Is it enough for Mike and Bruce to simply carry on the name...churning out show-after-show...or does their legacy demand more?  Is it sacred enough that it shouldn't be treated as a commodity?  Should there be some sort of understanding between the surviving members in regards to everything they have created...all the good memories...the incredible music...and how they want to be remembered?

I'd think Brian is in a good spot...he's going to collect touring revenue from the Mike and Bruce Show AND he can still go out and do his own thing...with the possibility of still working with Mike and Bruce again.  Does Al have a similar agreement?  Does he collect a percentage of the touring band's revenue?

So there is not an annual vote on the renewal of using the license?  It is indefinite?

The 3-1 vote wasn't for Mike to tour as The Beach Boys, it was to establish the license that grants the name. As long as the terms of said license aren't revised and as long as he adheres to them, he can tour as The Beach Boys.

Over on the Bloo there's currently a mindless witch hunt to strip Mike of the right to tour as the BB, solely, as far as I can see, because he isn't Brian.

I don't see that making them look poorly to the public. the public just sees the BBs as whomever shows up these days. 
as to voting,  they're not going to vote away the source of income; each vote gets a share of the tour income. Mike gets more as a performer, but he's also tied into the tour income

I think these are some of the issues that some fans prefer to ignore.

For example, when Al was banned from touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends there was a lot of anti-Mike comment. What people forgot was that it was Al who was using the name without permission and that he wasn`t paying the other band members for it. The fact that money was a key issue for Brian (or his management) can be seen from the fact that he was happy to stop that band, which included his daughters, from touring.

Bruce has said in the past that Brian, Al and Carl`s estate all get paid.

Good point.  The person who would stand to lose the most is Al.  Brian has proven himself to be a very viable solo commodity.  There is no reason to think that he couldn't simply revert to what he was doing last year... and the year before... and on and on.  Al Jardine, by himself, isn't the live draw of Brian Wilson or even of the Mike/Bruce lead Beach Boys touring band.  In fact, it would seem (to me, at least) that Brian holds most of the cards.  Brian can command higher ticket prices than anyone else (correct?).  Mike and Bruce WITH Brian could command higher ticket prices than they could alone.  The issue is whether or not Brian wants to do that. 

I have to say, I think AGD is way off the mark here.

Fans are unhappy because, at least as it is popularly depicted, Brian, Al and Dave are being excluded from the band they helped create. This is no little matter, and it doesn't matter what the behind the scenes facts are. It matters how it looks, and it looks like Mike behaving -- once again -- like his most negative caricatures.

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances, and because they (likely) haven't gotten a firm commitment from Mike to do more full-lineup work in the future. They're not actively working (as far as we know) to keep him from playing the October dates. They just don't want the big show, the one that received raves across the country, to be shelved permanently.

And why would anyone want that? This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Shouldn't that count for something?

This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Well said! The October dates were known of for quite some time. Al and Brian (and/or their "people") didn't start making a fuss about things until after the semi-press release. That tells me that, as you say, they had accepted Mike was doing some gigs in October, and that perhaps that press release in their minds seemed a bit more assertive in the old lineup being the lineup going forward for the forseeable future.

But this has been twisted by some fans into those parties making an equal cut of the revenue. They only get their share of the licensing fee. The licensing fee would presumably be split between Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl's estate. What is the licensing fee? We obviously don't know.

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances

The 3-1 vote wasn't for Mike to tour as The Beach Boys, it was to establish the license that grants the name. As long as the terms of said license aren't revised and as long as he adheres to them, he can tour as The Beach Boys.

Over on the Bloo there's currently a mindless witch hunt to strip Mike of the right to tour as the BB, solely, as far as I can see, because he isn't Brian. Just when I think they can't get any stupider over there, they go and prove me wrong. I'm guessing if Brian had put out a press release stating that Mike, Alan, Bruce & David weren't touring with him post 9/28, he'd have got three cheers, the keys to the city and a Nobel Prize.

I think there was a blurb written by somebody online that mentioned that Brian gave over control of the name to Mike at some point during one of the lawsuits. We simply don't know if this is the case or not.

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys????  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.


1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

What??? Seriously???

Some fans have made out that all of the members including Mike get an equal share despite the fact that Mike is the only one on stage??? I`ve never seen that and they would have to be slightly backward to believe that would be possible. Of course Mike is going to get more as he is the one working 100+ nights every year. But if they didn`t think the money was going to be ample then Brian and Carl`s estate wouldn`t have allowed him to do it.

Totally untrue, as Brian has never had sole ownership of the name. Someone's misremembereing the 1976-77 power struggle when Brian would sometimes give his vote to Mike, to avoid confrontations.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.


1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

I seriously doubt that's true (no matter what Brian says in promotional interviews).

What would the "existing rules" be?

Always wear a hat in public if you are bald.
Send dumbass Facebook msgs baiting other band members.
Steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that John Stamos doesn't deserves the right to exist.
Always downplay Dennis's role in the band when compiling tracklists for compilations.

The parties dispute whether BRI and Jardine entered into a non-exclusive license agreement. After the July 1998 BRI board meeting, Jardine began touring with his own band, using a booking agent and manager that were not included in the list approved by the Love license. On October 25, 1998, Jardine's attorney sent BRI a letter saying that Jardine would be performing as “Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and that therefore, “a license from BRI [was] unnecessary.” On October 28, 1998, BRI told Jardine that his unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement.
Jardine then proposed a license that included terms different from those included in the Love license. Jardine's proposal contemplated only a five-percent royalty to BRI on the first $1 million of gross receipts and a 17.5 percent royalty thereafter. BRI proposed a 17.5 percent royalty across the board. Love's license required a royalty of 20 percent of the first $1 million and 17.5 percent of receipts thereafter. Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list. Jardine stated that, whether or not BRI accepted the proposal, he would continue performing as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.”
The BRI board scheduled another meeting for November 24, 1998 to discuss Jardine's proposal. Before the meeting, Jardine's attorney sent a letter to the board with a proposed license agreement signed by Jardine. At the meeting, the BRI board voted to reject Jardine's proposal. In the months following the meeting, Jardine both attempted to negotiate an agreement and claimed he had a license.
Jardine and his band continued to perform using names that included “The Beach Boys” trademark. The performances were promoted under names such as: Al Jardine of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends; The Beach Boys “Family and Friends”; Beach Boys Family & Friends; The Beach Boys, Family & Friends; Beach Boys and Family; as well as, simply, The Beach Boys. Jardine and his band performed in locations and on dates close to Love's “The Beach Boys” shows. With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers sometimes were confused about what exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band. A number of show organizers booked Jardine's *903 band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests, but subsequently canceled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said that they had been confused about who was performing. During this time period, BRI sent Jardine cease and desist letters objecting to Jardine's use of the trademark.
On April 9, 1999, BRI filed its complaint in the district court alleging that Jardine was infringing its trademark. Jardine answered, asserting the defenses of fair use, laches, estoppel, and unclean hands, and counterclaimed for breach of employment agreement, breach of license agreement, and for a declaratory judgment that Jardine could tour as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.” On March 28, 2000, the district court issued the preliminary injunction prohibiting Jardine from using “The Beach Boys,” “The Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and other similar combinations, but still allowing Jardine to refer to his past membership in the band “in a descriptive fashion.”

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

But, all they (Al & Brian) had/have to do is ask Mike. It's not they never see each other. I know, I know, this is The Beach Boys we're talking about...

My recollection [warning] from the appeals court document is BRI voted to give an exclusive license to Mike. At some point later Al decided he wanted a license so BRI jerked Mike's exclusive license back and offered a nonexclusive license to Mike, Al and Brian if they abided by the terms that had been negotiated for Mike's previously exclusive license. Apparently Brian never sought the nonexclusive license and Al did but he would not agree to the terms established. BRI negotiated and went as far as to offer Al terms sweeter than Mike had been offered but apparently Al would not agree to terms and did write up his own license with his own terms of which he was the only signatory and began to operate using the trademark without a license from BRI. This was a case of Mike getting jerked around by the bandmates he supposedly  ::) bullys.

If you people are truly interested in the License case, it is not hard to find the case:  Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here is just some of the relevant background from Judge Tashima's opinion:

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.


1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

.
I guess we could just copy our debates from circa 2000 regarding all of that BB name business. But to suggest Mike was getting "jerked around" is kind of silly. First of all, as we've been told so many times, the legal action was from BRI, not Mike personally. So if Al and Brian were "jerking" anybody around, it was their own BRI company. Similarly, if BRI "jerked" the license from Mike, that was BRI, not any one person.

Another little bit that I'm sure I ended up arguing years ago is that, if Al was offered cheaper/better terms for a license, that would have made sense since he was not calling his band "The Beach Boys", and I don't believe Al ever attempted to go out with a competing band with the exact same name as Mike's "Beach Boys."

Not that it matters (as I often say  :lol ), but I don't think there is any scenario where we would have seen two bands going out as "The Beach Boys" simultaneously, and by mutual agreement. That's why I don't buy that Brian and Al could just go out right now as "The Beach Boys" if they simply abided by terms of an agreement made with Mike.

It's not silly at all. Mike got jerked around over the license by his co-board members in BRI. Mike did nothing but abide by his agreement and the others did nothing they agreed to until after Al thumbed his nose at them for their trouble which they had made Mike's trouble.

Adding words after a trademark has no effect on use of the trademark. Use of the trademark is use of the trademark. I can't market my cola as "Pepsi and Ice" and expect Pepsico not to object to my use of their trademark amongst my words. It is still trademark use at full value. Besides Al had agreed to abide by the agreement to use the trademark. He doesn't [and didn't] get a pass because it is self-serving.

BRI could do that and already have when they unsuccessfully tried to help Al nonexclusive licenses at Mike's exclusive licnese's expense. Because of Al there is now only an exclusive license held by Mike. BRI could change that because they already did when they jerked Mike around over the nonexclusive licenses while unsuccessfully trying to appease Al.

We'll just continue to disagree because there is no way Al is the good guy or the victim in this particular situation imo.

Reading the judge`s comments it seems pretty clear that things turned out as they ought to have done.

It is right that Al could refer to his past membership of the band `in a descriptive fashion`.

It`s also right that he was banned from using the Beach Boys name as he was too cheap to pay for it. Al indeed does come out as the villain of the piece at that time.

A real shame as Al essentially wasted a whole decade where he could have been performing as himself to smaller crowds and maybe winning some new fans.

Al helped draft the requirement and agreed to abide by the 20% requirement first then tried to negotiate the fee down to 5% contravening the original requirements and agreement he helped draft as a condition of having a nonexclusive license and only proposed the trademark with additional words name change as a last resort loophole [after he wasn't going to get a license] through which he claimed he wouldn't need a license at all to use the trademark.

Al didn't get to continue with the band because he had already quit, supposedly to record an album with his sons, and because he had tried to arrange a post-Carl's death concert or something with Brian which Brian didn't want to do and because Brian didn't want to do it Mike didn't either and Al tried to go behind Mike's back and arrange it anyway using Peter Cetera as Mike's replacement. Brian wanted Mike to have the band and the trademark with the exclusive license and Carl's estate intervened when Al  threatened a lawsuit over the exclusive license Brian wanted Mike to have.  Al is a victim of only himself and the rest of BRI was also the victim of Al.

That's what I've heard, anybody know different?

Is it? Al voted for the use of the trademark name by original members of the band to require a license with certain conditions to be met and set fees to be paid when he thought it was Mike being required to do it and again when he thought Mike, Brian and himself would be required to do it.  So did he suddenly decided it was a huge injustice to be required to do what he required to be done only when it was required of him? Justified for Mike or Brian but not justified for Al if he has to live up to his own prearranged conditions?  

Ok, I'm going to have to move on, apparently not many share my view.

Reading the judge`s comments it seems pretty clear that things turned out as they ought to have done.

It is right that Al could refer to his past membership of the band `in a descriptive fashion`.

It`s also right that he was banned from using the Beach Boys name as he was too cheap to pay for it. Al indeed does come out as the villain of the piece at that time.

A real shame as Al essentially wasted a whole decade where he could have been performing as himself to smaller crowds and maybe winning some new fans.

A big part of trademark infringement, which is what a lot of this boils down to, is indeed this "confusion" standard.  Would Al using the name as he was confuse people?  I don't recall the specifics under the Lanham Act, but there might not even need to be actual confusion, just the possibility of confusion.

Also, keep in mind that the legal parties are not necessarily actual reflections of the individuals.  Yes, Al wanted to do things a certain way, but it's then the lawyers that figure out how to do it and what tack to take.  I mean, obviously there are hard feelings at times, but I do think the boys themselves are a step removed from the action.

I think it was more than not being willing to pay to use the BB name. Arguments were also made that the "BBFF" name was confusing concertgoers and promoters/venues. That's why I think the whole issue of paying for a license, and going out as "BBFF", was a non-starter early on, as even if Al had abided by whatever terms BRI wanted him to, they would have eventually started fighting that out too and telling him that a second "Beach Boys", or even just a second band called "BBFF" wouldn't work. They were pretty active early on in trying to prove that people were "confused" by Al's "BBFF" name.

As for Al wasting the decade, that's true, and a shame. He should have been doing small, solo shows instead of booking sporadic oldies shows with Dean and whatnot.

Yeah that's where I'm going.

It was a straight forward situation, then a situation made tough by Al.

Plus, finding out that you are out of the band by watching Mike, Bruce & David performing at the pre-Super Bowl party, could leave a foul taste in one's mouth. Bad blood was mounting way before the licensing agreement stuff took hold.

Yeah, it's all part of that big picture. As we've subsequently learned, the actual appearance at that show may have been a surprise, but Al already knew what was likely happening by that point.

Yeah, it's all part of that big picture. As we've subsequently learned, the actual appearance at that show may have been a surprise, but Al already knew what was likely happening by that point.

Plus, finding out that you are out of the band by watching Mike, Bruce & David performing at the pre-Super Bowl party, could leave a foul taste in one's mouth. Bad blood was mounting way before the licensing agreement stuff took hold.

Hmm, was David playing that show?  I know Dean Torrence was, as was Stamos and possibly even G. Campbell and they were billed not as the Beach Boys but as "America's Band".  FWIW, that appearance was not only news to Al, but also to Brian and Carl who watched on tv as well (with Carl passing less than a week later)

**Yep, should have checked 10452 to begin with.  America's Band,  A Tribute to The Beach Boys: M. Love (which begs the question--how do you make a tribute to yourself, but whatever), B. Johnston, D. Marks, D. Torrence, G. Campbell, J. Stamos.

I believe this comes from that appearance:

(http://cbswnewhd.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/72570631.jpg?w=385&h=240)

Hmm, was David playing that show?  I know Dean Torrence was, as was Stamos and possibly even G. Campbell and they were billed not as the Beach Boys but as "America's Band".  FWIW, that appearance was not only news to Al, but also to Brian and Carl who watched on tv as well (with Carl passing less than a week later)

**Yep, should have checked 10452 to begin with.  America's Band,  A Tribute to The Beach Boys: M. Love (which begs the question--how do you make a tribute to yourself, but whatever), B. Johnston, D. Marks, D. Torrence, G. Campbell, J. Stamos.

The SIP era really kicked off the 1990s feuding between Mike and Al.

" A Tribute to the Beach Boys" or a "Tribute to California"? It was a Tribute to California not the Beach Boys.

Carl was easing Al out of the band in 1987? If it wasn't the Beach Boys then how could being left out of it mean Al was being left out of the Beach Boys? It wasn't a Beach Boys gig, Mike's ES or AB or whatever side-job band had played a Super Bowl related corporate gig that day or the night before or something. Carl and Brian weren't there for this non-Beach Boys appearance either were they being cut out of the band by themselves too?

I gotta quit revising this entry.

The SIP era really kicked off the 1990s feuding between Mike and Al.

Was that the last time Bruce played the bass?? I'm not sure it's plugged in there but he's got it...

" A Tribute to the Beach Boys" or a "Tribute to California"? It was a Tribute to California not the Beach Boys.

Carl was easing Al out of the band in 1987? If it wasn't the Beach Boys then how could being left out of it mean Al was being left out of the Beach Boys? It wasn't a Beach Boys gig, Mike's ES or AB or whatever side-job band had played a Super Bowl related corporate gig that day or the night before or something. Carl and Brian weren't there for this non-Beach Boys appearance either were they being cut out of the band by themselves too?

I gotta quit revising this entry.

Actually I believe it was "A Salute to California" featuring "America's Band". Something like that.

And if this was Al being edged out of the BBs, wouldn't it be Carl edging him out in 1987? Did Al even participate in Mike's side band in those days. Mike might have been edging Al out of his side band but if not being there is being edged out of the BB band then who was edging out Brian and Carl? Al, Brian and Carl weren't there but together they constituted a majority in BRI.

Actually I believe it was "A Salute to California" featuring "America's Band". Something like that.

And if this was Al being edged out of the BBs, wouldn't it be Carl edging him out in 1987? Did Al even participate in Mike's side band in those days. Mike might have been edging Al out of his side band but if not being there is being edged out of the BB band then who was edging out Brian and Carl? Al, Brian and Carl weren't there but together they constituted a majority in BRI.

The NFL site ( http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history/entertainment )   lists it as >> Salute to California with the Beach Boys <<
 

OK, but I don't remember that group being called the BBs [it wasn't the BBs after all] but I can't find any video of it so......

This isn't theoretical, it was a real event in 1987 and the group in the salute doesn't represent the BBs in 1987. Mike wasn't in control of the band. He could no more leave Al out of the Beach Boys then Al could leave Mike out of the Beach Boys in 1987. What about Carl and Brian, are we also theorizing that Mike had the power to leave them out of an event and still call it the BBs?

Yep, I'm confabulating two events. In 1998 it was "A celebration of music and history of California. Performances by The Fifth Dimension, Lee Greenwood and members of the Beach Boys. Phil Hartman narrated the show".

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=7168.30;wap2

Well said! The October dates were known of for quite some time. Al and Brian (and/or their "people") didn't start making a fuss about things until after the semi-press release. That tells me that, as you say, they had accepted Mike was doing some gigs in October, and that perhaps that press release in their minds seemed a bit more assertive in the old lineup being the lineup going forward for the forseeable future.