The Smiley Smile Message Board

As announced by Al on Facebook!

"Brian and I will be performing with the KLOS All Star Band and The Doobie Brothers at the 95.5 KLOS Christmas Show, Dec 13th, in Los Angeles...more info below:"

(edit: Can't get the link to work. Check Al's Facebook)
Here it is on his website:
http://www.aljardine.com/calendar.html

Discuss.

Is this going to be broadcast?

screw Myke and Bruce with their Bleech Boyus

Brian, Al and David should make their own shows and do whatever they want!

hmm, performing together or just at the same show?

The way he words it makes it sound like they're doing it together - like the 2006 Pet Sounds Tour. Thought this would be big news here - weren't people pining for Brian and Al to team up a mere month ago?

Brian and Al should do a mini tour in small venues performing the entire "love you" album.

I'm not trying to be funny, we know Al loves "honkin" and Brian loves to rock. Win-win

They even dicussed the prospect in Mojo magazine a few years back, I think.

Unless it's being broadcast, I don't care tbh.

Sounds to me like they may be part of the KLOS All Star Band.

That's how I understand it, too. They probably are going to sing two of their hits plus "Little St. Nick" or maybe less, I think.

It's an outrage - what about Mike, Bruce & David ?  How selfish of Brian & Alan to exclude the others. :brow

They playin' this show as "The Beach Boys"? They aren't? Oh.

False equivalency.

More like SOH faliure.  ;D

Ain't you heard Andrew, Brian and Al have obviously sacked Mike, Bruce and Dave … oh, and Jeff.

Why yes, it is the firing of Jeff that stings the most. We hardly knew ye, Foskett...

http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/2C00495AEFE76AEA

It's too bad that tickets range from $75-225, and that the cheaper tickets are gone.  The Doobie Bros rank in my top 5 bands too, would've been fun!  The only tickets left are $225.

nobody gives one tiny sh!t if Mike and Bruce (and Stamos) perform without the others, don't you get it? as long as they stop calling themselves the Beach Boys.

but who the hell would pay to see THAT?

I'd pay. It'd be cheaper, too!

Any word on Dave?

Exactly, thank you. I'm not sure why Brian or Al or anybody doing solo gigs or appearing as "themselves" is being compared to Mike and Bruce specifically deciding not to do more shows with the rest of the BB's, while continuing to use the "Beach Boys" name.

The various BB message boards catch-cry! ;D

Meh. No Blondie and Ricky.

I'm just pissed that nobody asked Mark Groseclose...

.

:D

Because they are equally insignificant.

It's big of you to admit it, Andrew.

Little Saint Nick: http://youtu.be/G8_X8pFfmgU (http://youtu.be/G8_X8pFfmgU)

Photos:  http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.481894088515998.104617.136456489726428&type=1 (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.481894088515998.104617.136456489726428&type=1)

Happy to see Nicky back in the fold but... not one of Brian's better performances.

Interview with Al:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzoox4asI0

Al seems to confirm in this interview that the Royal Albert Hall show was recorded.

Was Brian in a wheelchair?

Seems not:

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/814_481894215182652_1896787973_n.jpg)

Definitely.  Both points.

When was Nicky not in the fold?  He was in the reunion show that I went to (Hollywood Bowl).

Thanks, John. I didn't see the pictures, only the video.

Gotta love any Al interview...."is England a continent? Well it's an island anyways"  ;D

He dropped out about half way thru - surely not for any bad reason, most likely that they just had a surplus of guitar players!

That was a shame as he makes a great contribution.  Seems able to play any guitar style extremely well.

I thought Nicky dropped out of the tour for health reasons. Kidney stones or some other thing.

Brian has great hair. He never disappoints in that department.

Terrible, silly questions that served no cultural, intellectual, nor spiritual purpose. We learned nothing about the state of the BB.

From the video, sounds like he was half-assing it.

Been finally getting into The Doobies! Maybe when "What A Fool Believes" is suddenly your favorite song, you're either simply getting old or..... something.... Mhycal McDdonuhld is great  >:D

Been watching a lot of live footage of them. Man, did they have a smokin' rhythm section!!! Those two drummers with killer percussionist Bobby Lakind in the middle was really something to see!

More

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-KIR214U4

Well - that's a bit of a surprise. They perform "Christmas Day" - Al's first lead vocal on a BBs record - and Brian says it's the first time it's ever been done live. Unfortunately there's only part of it - the cellphone must have been on the fritz a bit.

As noted above, Brian's singing is pretty patchy - I almost was wondering if he'd helped himself to some heavy-duty egg nog, but talking between songs he sounds pretty sober.  Al is stellar - Xmastime always seems to bring out his best.

Something about Brian and Al together just seems right.

It's at the very least  the 2nd time, but Brian may have not known about the first performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkl4yv4etNU

I think that the audio from this was released on itunes too, if I remember correctly.

Scotty B on drums and Brett back on bass I see, nice to hear "Christmas Day".

wow. I never realized it was Al on Christmas Day. sounds so much like Brian on the record.

Well, there could certainly be worse outcomes from this year then getting Brian and Al touring again (and why not bring along Dave?).

The guys should be working together in some configuration.

Ahhh, great to see Brian and Al back together

Yeah, it's been so long, hasn't it. What... 75 days ?  ;D

As long as it lasts, this time around… fingers crossed. This pairing has more genetic right to bear the Beach Boys name… can't be long before the others find the correct alignment again.

Um... remember what happened last time John. The omens are not good.

Isn't Bruce a longer touring Beach Boy then Al now?

I think that was pointed out several years ago, and it's a factoid of no consequence whatsoever now, just as it was back then. Ed Carter is a longer touring member of the band than Brian Wilson. For that matter, Bruce is a longer touring member than Dennis and Carl too.

I'm particularly at a loss as to what Bruce's years under the licensed BB name has to do with Al and Brian doing a show together.

I dunno, apart from the reunion, Al and Brian had peformed about 11 shows together in the last 16 years, so the appearance of those two together is as noteworthy as anything apart from a full reunion.

But I suppose the glee over the breakup of the reunion isn't enough, so now it has broken down into mocking any two Beach Boys other than Mike and Bruce performing together going forward.  :(

I actually have a far-fetched thought about the possible importance of this show with Brian and Al. To avoid the warranted skeptical responses, let me preface this by saying that this is a far-fetched idea, and I'm only pointing it out to spur discussion. This isn't grasping at straws for more reunions, etc..

Going back several years to the timeframe revolving around the Mike-Brian lawsuit concerning the "Smile" album and the "free" CD giveaway, etc., one of the little tidbits buried in the various background details of the case was a reference to Brian (meaning his "people" one would presume) at one point telling Mike that he (Brian) would/could vote to take the license back and tour with Al as "The Beach Boys." Even back then, it sounded more like a bargaining ploy than any serious desire for Brian to do this. I wish I had all the pdfs from the case at my disposal at the moment to grab the precise detail.

In any event, I remember when that detail was revealed that only a year or two previously, Al had done those small handfull of shows with Brian in late 2006/early 2007. I remember wondering back then if those shows had been some sort of "message" or sort of bargaing tactic or bluff, as if to indicate that this lineup was plausible. Sort of a "Hey, I can get Al in the band easily enough. The next step is to start calling it 'The Beach Boys'". Again, all extremely far fetched. But I remember wondering back then if Al joining those shows was about something other than just having Al join in for old time's sake, etc.

The obvious point I'm coming around to is to wonder if Al and Brian playing together now is anything of a similar nature, to send a message, or to assert themselves. Again, let me remind, this is extremely speculative and far-fetched. I don't even believe this, but it's an interesting extremely remote possibility.

The extremely likely scenario is that Brian got this gig and they decided to have Al join in, end of story.

No glee here, and the reunion didn't breakup: rather, it was extended past it's originally contracted lifespan and ended when everyone concerned said it would. Now, had (insert your principal of choice here) said after, say, 17 shows "f*** this, I've had enough", then the reunion would have broken up. Still baffles me that supposedly sentient posters (I'm assuming they're doing their own posting, which of course may not be the case) can't - or more likely won't - comprehend this very simple and documented fact.

I certainly hope they can stick together if more reunion stuff is not in the cards. Hopefully they could make it a bit more of a joint effort than the shows Al did with Brian back in 06/07, where Al was pretty under-utlized, just getting a few leads.

I think this is really a sematics thing, unfortunately. When 3/5 of the "reunion" wants to keep going, then it's a bit more than "ending it when everybody agreed it would." Of course that's technically true. Dennis Wilson's solo tour in 1977 also ended when everybody agreed it would, because it never happened in the first place. That doesn't mean some folks didn't want it to happen, and other folks kept it from happening.

I will do my best to avoid using the terminology of the "the reunion was broken up" and use the more accurate "Mike kept the reunion from continuing past it's previously agreed upon contractual end date according to the joint notarized agreement signed by each corporate BRI member."

I'm sorry, but this is not some sort of vague, sketchy "Mike killed the "Smile" album" debate where there are no single obvious answers. The non-continuation of the reunion may be a complicated matter, or maybe not, but a big part of it clearly seems to be Mike Love's lack of a willingness to continue it. That we would have potentially had more reunion shows were it not for Mike's actions is not something that should be completely avoided in a hail of proclamations that "it was contractually agreed upon!"

I think we also may be getting hung up in whether we define the "reunion" as a single project agreed upon beforehand, or if it's a continual state of the band, or a potential continual state of the band. Considering some of the band wanted to continue, I don't think the latter interpretation is completely off the wall.

Regarding the highlighted section, I don't recall reading anything like that, at the time or since. I would dearly love to see any documentation for this claim (which btw is not feasable, as it would require both Brian & Carl's estate to side with Alan to deprive Mike of his right to tour as The BB: Brian could not do it on his own).

As for Alan touring with Brian for the Pet Sounds 40th anniversary shows, the reason behind his teaming up with Brian (and his subsequent 'departure') is well-known in certain circles - I know several folk here are aware -  and it had nothing whatsoever to do with any political maneuvers.

Brian knew Mike was booking M&B shows back for October in June: it was reported in Rolling Stone and he commented on it, saying "that's news to me". To claim to be suddenly surprised (and upset) several weeks later is, to be polite disingenuous. All the BRI members had to know.

But we've been here before, and at excruciating length: one day the full backstory will emerge.


The whole 'Celebration' project was conceived and agreed on by all parties over two years ago, and consisted of the release of The Smile Sessions, a new studio album and a 50th anniversary tour, accompanied with some archival releases. And that's exactly what happened.

I'm stepping into this for a brief addition: Sunday I heard an advertisement on the radio (Oldies Station) advertising ticket sales for a Beach Boys show coming up this Spring. They made it a point to mention how this would be a great gift for the music lover, or whatever...the only mention of the band was as "The Beach Boys"

What struck me is that *if* I had no knowledge of the situation as we do on this board and elsewhere, and heard that advert with the enticement to call for tickets, I might be confused as to which band would be appearing.

I'm saying that because as much as it is the absolute burden of the person calling that number to ask or find out the details before purchasing tickets, won't there be people who bought Beach Boys tickets a few months ago who may assume (incorrectly, of course) that they will be buying tickets to see the same act they saw in the summer? Will or should there be an effort to clarify when advertising these shows coming up in 2013?

Important Addition: If you go to the actual website for the venue and tickets for this specific show at the TD Bank Center, they *specifically* list the following in italics:

"This concert will not feature Brian Wilson, Al Jardine or David Marks"

Someone in marketing and sales (or legal) is on the ball... ;D

OK then, nothing to see here.   :)

Thats what happened when M&B toured my area, they had radio ads with classic song clips, therefore making them out to be the full group to the average guy.

Exactly! I put myself in the position of someone not knowing this board or the band like the more loyal fans do, and you wouldn't know the difference in bands from the ad. The version I heard played the original Good Vibrations as the copy was read over it.

After checking the web link, though, it seems someone higher up decided a clarification was needed and the disclaimer was added in italics under the band roster. But nothing of that sort on the radio.

Or someone who keeps an eye on the 'net.  ;)

Without knowing the ins and outs of the licensing deal, I would see no reason why Mike would still not have had the rights to the name during the 4 months or so of the tour. He had shows in early April then after the C50 at San Diego and Soth America (Canceled) so why would the period of the C50 be excluded?

For that reason, the concept of Brian, Al and Dave plus musicians being 'guests' of Mike's group, while sounding bizarre, may have some merit.

The so-called 'Love license' applies expressly to Mike & Bruce touring under the name "The Beach Boys". The C50 tour was an entirely different, seperate affair.

I definitely want to find that bit from one of the lawsuits, both for you and for myself. It's in one of the pleadings or somewhere in there. Not all of the back and forth in court is available online, sometimes it seems only the rulings rather the the initial point-by-point lawsuits are easily availble. I'll look around to see what I can find. I of course agree that it would require both Brian and Carl's estate to do such a thing. As I said, I don't think anyone actually believed Brian wanted to take the name or anything along those lines. I'd definitely like to track that bit down to get the exact wording.

As for Al joining Brian in 2006, I'd love for somebody to share the reasons behind that. I'm curious, out of all the info "out there" that we know about, why in the world that particular bit needs to be kept to those "in the know."

HeyJude, gotta dig your persistence.  :-D

Thank you?!?  :lol   I love yakking about stuff here, I enjoy it. But seriously, does anybody actually have this "inside info" about Al joining Brian back in 2006?  :lol

I wish I could find the original lawsuit from 2006 where I believe that reference to Brian taking the BB name is found. It's the same lawsuit, I believe, that makes strange references to things like Al Jardine's  "well-publicized emotional problems". There is a thread here http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2643.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2643.0.html) from 2006 that discusses one of the dismissals of parts of the lawsuit, but I can't find anything showing the original lawsuit itself, which I believe has the "meat" of the telling information/accusations.

Earlier in the thread David Marks (absence) was brought up. Anybody have any info on that? When Al and Brian went public about how they wanted to continue touring together as the Beach Boys, I'm assuming David was included in that. Do Al and Brian only wish to include him in a Beach Boys' lineup?

Crazy I know, but I can't help but think that Brian and Al might actually enjoy each other's company.

I think it was pretty evident that the interviewer probably knew that this was some dude from the Beach Boys, and other than that seemed to be going off of notes full of mostly inane questions. Sad, but not surprising. I don't expect some super fan to start grilling Al about what the band's plans are or anything, but that was pretty bad.

Al referenced a recording of RAH, but I think he simply acknowledged that a recording was made, and seemed almost whimsical about some day getting to simply hear it. Far from anything indicating a release of the show. We can hope, though.

I've seen Brian in person a bunch of times and have listened to countless recordings, and this show wasn't hugely different from an average Brian show. It was a short set, so I guess he didn't get a chance to warm up a bit like he sometimes can. Other than that, this is just kind of how Brian sounds at a typical show. Perhaps a bit below literally an "average" show, but I'm so used to his shows that his peformance here didn't strike me as particularly worse.

So the answer is: yes.

It was a reply to John Manning's: "This pairing has more genetic right to bear the Beach Boys name".

Chinook Winds Casino, Lincoln City Oregon - The Beach Boys perform March 1 & 2, 2013!
http://www.chinookwindscasino.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=600%3Athe-beach-boys-perform-march-1-a-2-2013&catid=51%3Aconcerts&Itemid=126

That's not the case in this appearance.  This announcement plays kinda fast and loose with who is in the band.  For the unenlightened, they might expect to see Brian Wilson et all playing these shows.

(I know Mike has alternative reasons for playing this venue for two shows but this small casino really isn't worthy of the Beach Boys legacy.  You'd NEVER find McCartney, let alone Ringo, playing this place)

Same here, but I can tell what Brian is going full-on with something and when he's doing the bare minimum. On that song, he wasn't putting forth his full effort. I think the C50 tour showed what he can do when he's going d*cks to the bricks.

That sounds painful. Perhaps that's why he avoids it when possible.

Indeed... that's a wonderful piece of raising expectations without actually lying. Dude should be a politician.

"Must be 16 years or older to attend". Interesting.

Great way to keep the BBs name valuable and not saturated like Mike talked about when ending C50. ::)

That helps place your question in context. But it's still, in my view only, a pointless rhetorical question. Surely anybody on this board can count the number of years actual BB's have been touring with a lineup using the BB name. Were you really unsure about the fact that Bruce toured from 1965 to 1972, and from 1978 to present, while Al toured from 1963 to 1998?

Whether the "genetic" comment was agreeable or not, I would also imagine the Wilson/Jardine lineup having an actual Wilson *may* have had something to do with the "genetic" reference. I don't think a Wilson/Jardine lineup should use the BB name (funnily enough, Brian and Al apparently agree with that sentiment), but it does raise an interest scenario where they certainly seem to have as much justification in using the name as Mike and Bruce do. But that's certainly a tired "band name" debate that goes nowhere.

Aye, my gene thing was a Wilson reference. I do think there'd've been a band since 61 whether Al, Dave or Mike had played along or not, and the Wilsons were the heart of it.

But also agree that it might not be the argument we should have. If Dave hooked up with Al and Brian, would that re-inforce their right to use the BBs' name? And if Bruce saw which side his v=bread was buttered and jumped ship to tag along, where would that leave things?

For what its worth, the discussion about the "Beach Boys" name and its use can only be hypothetical. Whether or not Al and or David teams up with Brian is likely immaterial. The License Agreement and whatever its terms and provisions are, controls the situation. Without knowing the full details of that agreement, speculation is pointless. Its length, renewal provisions (if any), business terms, requirements to remain in force, termination provisions, and otherwise set forth the basis on which control and use of the name occurs. Whatever anyone's feelings are about the situation, the license agreement and what it provides is the bottomline on the matter.
This is probably just pointing out the obvious. 

"Yes" would have been a much simpler answer.

Being a Wilson is no more meaningful or genetic than being a Love, Jardine, Marks, Johnson. I agree with BB Universe as far as the rest of the second part of your post.

Actually, I suppose not answering the question at all would have been the best course to take, as it did seem like a rhetorical question that seemed, in my view, to be intended as snarky or provocative, etc.

I don't think genes play a role in the BB's, it's the actual members. I suppose to the degree that one can take one BB and leave the other, I suppose some arbitrary meaningless "ranking" system would dictate that Brian, Mike, and Al are more integral members to using the name than Marks and Johnston. It's easy to point out that Brian indeed usually didn't figure into live shows. My take on that is simply that Brian is as integral to the live band as anybody when or if he's actually willing to be a part of it. Ironically, here were are at the end of 2012 and Brian wanted to be in the live band, and for numerous apparent reasons, it didn't happen.

Ideally, we get all of the living and willing BB's. I'm very glad we at least got that in 2012.

Brian, Al, and David all playing together wouldn't mean anything legally in terms of use of the name unless Brian and Al took action within their corporate structure. It would certainly add to the perception by *some* folks that Mike's use of the BB name is illegitimate. Since 1998, while plenty of criticism was lobbed at Mike for using the name, there was also always the sense that there wasn't much else that could be done with the name. By 1999, Marks left, Jardine was on the outs, and Brian wasn' t interested. There wasn't an alternative to Mike using the name other than nobody using the name. If three actual BB's toured together while two others toured seperately but used the band's name, that certainly wouldn't help to quiet criticism. But the fact that the criticism has been there all along and has been of little or no consequence to Mike continuing to use the name would suggest that Bruce, Blondie, Ricky, and a resurrected Dennis and Carl could all join in with Brian, David, and Al, and Mike would still use the name to the applause of most of the fans who go to the shows.

This is definitely a good point to make from time to time. The only thing indeed that will impact any change in use of the BB name is action within their corporate structure in terms of licensing the trademark. We indeed don't know the details of the current licensing agreement. My best guess is that if Brian and Al both wanted to end Mike's use of the name, they could probably on their own (or with lobbying of Carl's estate) enact such a change if they were willing to have a long, protracted fight about it. As I've mentioned numerous times, I doubt even in his zeal to continue the reunion, that Brian would actually put such a plan into motion. I doubt his zeal goes that far. The cost/benefit wouldn't make it much of a good decision most likely.

AGD mentioned that the C50  was a separate tour to the Mike deal which must mean some kind of clause in the licencing agreement which put it on hold for mid 2012. Given Andrew also said the tour was agreed to 2 years ago, this clause must have been in existence some time ago.

So it would be possible that next time it is up for negotiation, something again could be possible if, as has been suggested, Brian is interested.

Indeed!

The more likely scenario as to the C50 is that the license is not periodically up for renewal but has a (long) fixed term and that the licensee (here it is ML) agreed to a limited amendment of the license for the purpose of C50, unless the license itself includes a clause that addresses the situation involving a "tour of the whole". And, unless the license has some sort of reopener clause (highly doubtful) and is of the fixed term nature, the other corporate members will likely have to wait until the term expires before being able to negotiate anew.

Very possible. I think we are flying pretty blind when it comes to any of the actual terms and conditions of the current license. One would think that they would not tie themselves into some sort of iron-clad decade-long license or something like that, but who knows? I would think some sort of renewal or re-evaluation of the license (if for no other reason than to be able to have the option to alter the fees of the license) could be possible on a semi-regular basis. Mike obviously would have to book shows in advance to the degree that it wouldn't be neccesarily revokeable on a yearly basis or anything.

I would think Brian's lawyers (and Al's for that matter, to the degree than he exerts any kind of influence in such matters) would put him in a situation where he would still have the option to have some sort of ability to wield some power in the situation if he wanted to. But I think even in that scenario, Brian would probably have little desire to have the situation devolve into another 5 or 10 years of legal wrangling.

It's interesting and apporpriately generalized in wording, although I suppose the following line from the website: "The band has gone through many phases of membership, with Mike Love and Bruce Johnston being constant.", is technically inaccurate. Even if we discount Mike missing a show here and there a few times, Bruce certainly has not been quite constant, with a gap of six years in the 70's being most prevalent.

Mike's touring and doing these venues for the same reasons he has for the last umpteen years, and "bringing the music to smaller markets" for fear of somehow losing their fanbase is, in my view, low on the list of reasons, if we believe it's on the "list" at all.

That isn't the reason he is playing this place. Far from it.............

Wouldn't the reason he would like playing a couple of gigs in Oregon is because he has family up there?  Just a guess. Unless a more nefarious reason is known. Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce. Or they take that attitude until it's brought to their attention by Brian's people or whoever that they need to have the promoters make it clear who's actually in the band for that gig.

I lost track of the interview and was listening to Brian and his band sing California Girls in the background, they sound good.  ;D

You're assuming that the current license has an expiry date. Maybe it do, maybe it don't.

No family there.  Bad guess.

It's fairly obvious what he's hinting at....but really though, that doesn't seem like the sole reason to schedule a gig...

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

True, it's a regular stop on the Mike/Bruce casino tour.  Two shows is unusual but not surprising based on what I know.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

One one hand this show promo seems to infer that Brian, Al, David, Carl and Dennis may still be in the band and on tour; another slant is that it leaves the door open for more reunion shows.

For that matter, the fact that these type of threads include such speculation about a license -- as if that has any bearing on the Beach Boys besides the technicality of which group of dudes gets to use a trademark -- shows how easy it is to lose the proverbial forest for the trees.

I tried pointing this out in another thread, to no avail particularly. The fact that BRI pointed out promoters falsely advertising Al's show may be nothing more than a bit of irony, but it's amusing irony nonetheless. I don't believe the lawsuit specifically concerned shows being billed falsely, but simply used those instances as supporting evidence.

Back then, I remember thinking that it certainly wasn't Al's fault that promoters billed shows incorrectly, but it may have signaled a fundamental flaw in how Al was attempting to tour. The same goes for Mike. It isn't his fault promoters have at any point falsely advertised his shows, but the fact that he tours the way he does, and that he is now touring the way he does very soon after a high-profile reconstituted lineup, is certainly something that allows for some confusion to happen. If they booked more reunion shows, or if Mike used another name, such things would not happen.

But it is of course of no consequence, Mike will continue on as he always has. I see no evidence things will change. I think the best we can hope for is that Mike maybe actually does what he alluded to, possibly putting the reunion back together again in 2014. Unfortunately, the "changeover" from reunion to non-reunion band this year may not exactly lead Mike to become more enthusiastic about doing it that way again in 2014.

Great points Wirestone, this debate has the red herring of a licence to distract, the real debate is much deeper than that.

Congratulations - you've just contradicted yourself. You're holding Mike responsible for what the promoters do (despite being provided with accurate publicity material) yet bitching because that's exactly what Mike did to Alan. Mike's not getting a pass, at least from anyone here, and the fact is, the promoters are handed accurate promo material.

I don't think Wirestone is holding Mike accountable as much pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing out Al's shows being billed incorrectly while years later not holding the situation with Mike to the same standard. BRI was all up in arms about Al's shows being billed incorrectly back in 1999, but now it's "all the promoter's fault." Al was not afforded such slack back in 1999.

B.R.I. [Brian, Mike and Carl's estate] held Al responsible for using the trademark without a license. Mike has a license.

BRI used the false advertising of Al's shows as a supporting piece of evidence for suing Al for using the trademark without a license. BRI clearly objected to the false advertising of those shows, and was linking the false billing of shows to Al's alleged wrongdoing in the overarching case. BRI currently does not appear to be objecting to Mike using the trademark in such a way that might allow for the false advertising of his shows.

Once again, all this means is a slight bit of irony in that BRI previously frowned upon a touring operation that was leading to falsely billed shows, and presently does not seem to be objecting. The two cases are only even vaguely similar; there are vastly different circumstances in each case. It's just a bit of irony worth noting. Nothing more.

Mike is the Beach Boys by license, Al was not the Beach Boys because he had no license. Al was misleading the public by using the trademark for a group that was not under the licensed trademark. Mike is under the trademark and regardless of how wrong others may get it or take it, unlike Al, Mike is not falsely claiming the trademark. There is no irony or hypocrisy.

The irony concerns false billing of shows. It has nothing directly to do with the trademark, or use of the Beach Boys name. BRI used a bit of information in one of their lawsuits as a supporting piece of evidence to make their case to support their licensee. BRI currently doesn't care one bit (nor should they) that a similar thing is happening now to their licensee. That's the only bit of irony. Hypocrisy only concerns any theoretical person who attacked Al for his shows being falsely billed, meaning attacked him specifically for that one thing as if it was his fault, and now would stay silent when a *similar* thing happened to Mike.

The false billing was about Al not being the Beachs Boys. Mike is the Beach Boys. Al was responsible for operating without a license. Mike is not responsible for operating without a license. Al falsely billed himself as the Beach Boys. Mike is not falsely billing himself as the Beach Boys.

I totally agree with AGD's point - we just don't know, which to me, makes the discussion and speculation of "what ifs" regarding use of the name pretty much fruitless as to if anything different would ever happen.



If I understand the point correctly, then I guess I respectfully disagree with this comment. It is just the opposite, the license has everything to do with which group of people can use the name and makes all the rest of the discussion pointless, other than from the perspective of opining who should use it. Of course, if the purpose is to give opinions about the use of the name, then reference to the license is only 1 factor...but positing all the different scenarios still is a dead end (unless the license permits otherwise).

Again, all semantics, but Al was never accused of calling his band "The Beach Boys" or billing his band as "The Beach Boys." He was accused of using the "Beach Boys" trademark within his band's name ("BBFF"), and of operating without a license to do so. This is an important point only because not even in the BRI lawsuits was there any accusation that Al intentionally billed his band as simply "The Beach Boys", nor any accusation that Al wanted to bill his band as such. The instances where his shows were advertised as "The Beach Boys" were of promoters' doing, not Al's. In the eyes of law, using the "BB'" trademark is usually ultimately the same regardless of how it is used, which is why Al lost the case. But simply as it pertains to specifically billing shows as "The Beach Boys", it should be clarified that nobody ever accused Al of doing that specifically. This is simply a sematic point having to do with that one issue and nothing else. 

So if Al specifically "falsely billed himself as 'The Beach Boys'" because promoters did so, then Mike could equally be accused of "falsely advertising his show as containing Wilson, Jardine, and Marks" because promoters did so. Of course, neither is actually true.

I think one of the problems we have is that I don't think anybody is arguing the current legal state of matters. Mike has the exclusive license to use the name, and will for the forseeable future unless we hear otherwise.

The points being made about who morally/ethically, etc. has the right to use the name has nothing to do with this legality, and is the same fan debate that has been raging for literally decades at this point.

I read Wirestone's comments as simply lamenting the fact that the whole ball of wax has devolved into simply asserting the legality of the use of the name as a trademark. A rebuttal to the question of future "reunion" shows that simply asserts that Mike has the license is completely correct, and also an utter sad state of affairs in light of the history of the band, and more specifically, of the amazing quality of the reunion this year.

The only thing in this whole long-running discussion/debate that has changed and makes any speculation about the actual license to the name worth discussing anew is the recent hullaballoo at the end of the reunion tour. It's unlikely anything will change, but I think Brian's statement about wanting to do more reunion stuff and a vague reference to discussion among "shareholders" is just enough to spur a bit of total speculation about the slim possibility of something changing regarding the license.

His siblings Maureen and Stan live in Oregon. I'm not sure how close to that venue or what part of the state. I recall he introduced them when the reunion played in Oregon. Unless you mean your ex-girlfriend and Mike hit it off big time after their backstage meeting over the summer, and he booked two gigs in Oregon just to see her?

Meeeoooowwl! :lol

I think the point being missed is the point was not who was in Al's group but that the group was representing itself as the Beach Boys with the trademark which they did not have license to do. Mike does have a license to represent himself as the Beach Boys.

Apparently others misrepresented who was in Al's group and apparently others are misrepresenting who is in Mike's group, that they have in common. Anyway, Merry Christmas.

"Mike Love Stole My Baby Away" - has potential!

Bottom line - as long as Mike adheres to the terms of the license (as he has since 1999) and pays the other BRI corporate members their slice of the pie (ditto), no-one's going to rock the boat. What would the main thrust of any lawsuit be - "hey, you're following the rules exactly, but, er, we don't like that" ?  And, as other have pointed out, both Brian & Alan get money for doing nothing when Mike tours. These are not stupid people.

I want to call this point out just to say the primary reason why Mike would have anything to tour behind for the past 5 decades is Brian Wilson and the classic songs he produced for The Beach Boys. So the image of Brian getting money for sitting on his duff doing nothing while Mike travels around working his ass off isn't quite the way it is. If Brian had not written/produced those songs and created those arrangements which Mike still sells to audiences across the US, there would be no goose that has laid golden eggs for them since 1962.

Would fans pay to see a Beach Boys show comprised entirely of material where Brian was not involved in the original writing or production?

And ultimately if Mike agreed to the terms of that contract, Brian and Al *could* be jerks about it, and show up at Mike's gig with overstuffed easy chairs, a case of beer, and wave big cigars around while cackling loudly in the style of DeNiro in Cape Fear, while Mike sweats out another mid-summer outdoor gig and makes money for the guys sitting there with the beer and cigars watching from the side as he works.  ;D

Guitarfool, Brian and Al could also make more money by charging fans to sit with them during Mike and Bruce shows and hear their critiques of the show.... :lol :lol

That would be worth it! I suppose they could also rig up a web-only series where they sit in front of a screen like the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew and make sarcastic comments as they watch Mike's concert videos.  ;D

With the beer and cigars, or course.

Mike: This one comes from my "Mike Love, Not War" album.
Brian: Yeah, I can't wait for that one.
Mike: It's called "Cool Head, Warm Heart."
Al: Everyone's favorite Beach Boys song, that's the one everyone came to hear.
Brian: His head stays cool because there's no hair to keep him warm.

... and if Mike and the rest of the band hadn't worked their collective ass off doing endless tours 1967-1972 and sometimes doing 3 shows a day, keeping the music of Brian Wilson in the public eye (ear, whatever...), it's possible that said music would now be largely forgotten.

I agree with that. At the same time, it was that re-release of the "classic" Brian productions which put them in a much better place than they had been publicly since late 1967, and it got fans coming out to bigger live venues in bigger numbers to hear those classics performed. It's kind of a harsh thing to say, but the hard work and sweat and three shows per day efforts would do far less for the band's fortunes than a half-baked re-release from Capitol of all their "hits" from the 60's.

Of course it's all speculation, but I think the fluke of a hit which was Endless Summer was a big key to keeping the torch lit, and any number of shows or efforts from the early 70's lineup - as musically solid and good as they were, along with the concerts - adds up to less of what kept all of them in demand with the public and new fans. Without Endless Summer part of me thinks there would be no Beach Boys by 1976, until the reunion craze decades later called for such a thing to happen.

This is funny....


...and this is true!!!

I see the Chinook Winds page has revised their description of the band. Maybe someone at BRI, or one of Mike's 'people' read it here and got on the stick. Maybe we can make a difference.

The Love's live in the Eugene area, quite a ways away.  There are many. many finer venues which R closer; like Spirit Mountain. I actually played some pick-up ball against Stan in High School and ran into him at the Eugene show this year.  One of the best players I ever went against but also the dirtiest.

Yes, I had a very up close and personal experience with the Lovester.  I can honestly say the legends and stories are true - the man is one first class jerk and a..hole!  Can certainly see why he goes thru so many wives.  Leave it at that.

As you always tell us AGD, important people read this  board.

Wow, that's a complete re-write and specifically says who is in the band.

I can only add that nobody is missing the point concerning the license to use the BB name, or what Al was doing back in 1999, etc. The point concerning promoters billing shows incorrectly was exactly what you have finally mentioned, which is that Al in 1999 and Mike presently have both experienced this. I pointed out the irony of BRI using this against someone in 1999 and not caring about that now. That's all. Nothing to do with licenses and lawsuits.

This particular area of discussion has indeed more than run its course.

I haven't seen anybody suggest any lawsuit would be involved in taking Mike's license away. In such a theoretical scenario, it would involve voting to change how the license is used. It is indeed highly unlikely this will happen, but if it did, it wouldn't have to involve a lawsuit.

Brian and Al indeed get money for doing nothing. But they would make more money actively touring. So if, say, Al actually wanted to go out and tour and not stay home, he would get to make more money and do the thing he wants to if he toured in the Beach Boys. I'm not saying he wants that at this point. It's even less likely Brian wants that.

Both elements, the writing of the songs as well as touring to get it out to the masses over the years, were obviously required to make the whole equation work. That both were needed does not indicate, to me, that any one "faction" of the group "deserves" to use the name more than the others. This is especially true when some of the members want to keep the FULL group together to tour.