The Smiley Smile Message Board

Wonder if Howie wrote this?

Al says Brian, Al and David want to bill themselves as Original Beach Boys. Apparently, Mike is fighting it.

http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=2025029

Enjoy! These guys really know how to promote a box set!

I love those guys. :woot

Well, I don't recall ever hearing that Michael's license said that the other members couldn't be introduced as "Beach Boy Brian/Al/David".

AL: " I hope they would accept us in a couple of years if we decided to do it again. I, I don't know if they'd believe us. There's still this negative bias going on, even as we speak. Contrary things coming out. Let's put it this way; there's conflict in the Beach Boys organization about how to present it. We would like to present ourselves as 'original Beach Boys' so that the press knows who we are. Not everybody knows the individuals. By now, hopefully, everybody knows who Brian Wilson is and who Jeff Beck is and Al Jardine is and Dave Marks. We may find ourselves faced with legal obstruction -- let's put it that way."

Holy The Real Ghostbusters, Batman!

"The Greek Theatre is proud to present Original Beach Boys Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks in concert with special guest Jeff Beck." Apparently, Mike says no. Violates his license.

It just never stops, does it?  Fifty freaking years of working together and they just cannot work it out.

I love the music, the guys seem pretty okay and all (everybody has their issues in life, but basically, these are fellas just making music, preaching some good messages and not out there axe-murdering anybody, or anything), and it's been proven, as of one year ago, that if and when the members of the group are able to put everything out on the table and just compromise like rational adults, this thing is workable and the public is responsive.

It's gotten to the point where it's beyond funny, ironic, amusing or bemusing self-caricature.  It's just plain pathetic tedium.  Boring.  My take?  Either get it together, or shut up about it in the press.  It's not doing anyone, on any side, any good anymore.

I like this quote from the article:  "Out now is the Beach Boys' latest concert collection, called Live: The 50th Anniversary Tour, which features reunited co-founders Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine, David Marks, and longtime member Bruce Johnston."

This one is pretty cold re:Brian:

 "WHAT DO YOU THINK???

Does all this continued bad blood simply underscore the fact that these people shouldn't be in each other's lives in ANY CAPACITY, let alone working and traveling together???From what you know of the Beach Boys saga, does it all come down to the fact that Mike Love's always been jealous of his cousin Brian Wilson's talent and money

 -- or has Mike Love kept the Beach Boys name and music alive for 50 years on the road and he shouldn't have to answer to a mentally diminished recovering drug addict just because he was brilliant in the 1960's???"

That's just . . poor.

Out of interest, does Brian really have that much more money than Mike that Mike would be jealous of that? Surely Mike has made stacks over the years.

And I'm pretty sure that was written by Stebbins pal Howie Edelson. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure all of the Beach Boys articles coming from that site are by him.

Yeah, I think Howie has an Al connection. Surprised he would phrase a question like " -- or has Mike Love kept the Beach Boys name and music alive for 50 years on the road and he shouldn't have to answer to a mentally diminished recovering drug addict just because he was brilliant in the 1960's???"

In any event, this explains the newly, even more negative Mike interview. Sounds like a replay of the Al license thing. Brian, Al and David want to overtly promote themselves as original BBs but not pay a license fee. Mike says, now hood on, I have the license and you can't have your cake and eat it too. I see both sides. Glad I am not a judge but the lawyers must be licking their chops!

You know...as much as we knock Mike, Al really is as much of an instigator.

It is quite ugly that he takes shots at both Mike and Brian in that question.

I agree about seeing both sides but hope the lawyers won't be needed. The tour is starting fairly soon after all...

We really don't know what's going on behind the scenes (obviously big things). These guys are making chess moves. Brian's mgt may be using Al as their mouth piece.

BAD just did only 8 dates? Why? Promotional problems? Fix- bill themselves as Original Beach Boys.
Mike says no, it hinders my ability to tour as the BBs.

Out of interest, would David have any legal right at all to bill himself as an 'original Beach Boy'?

Agree!!! Unfortunetly, these guys sue and Al says "We may find ourselves faced with legal obstruction -- let's put it that way." Sounds like BAD expressed their intention to promote themselves as original BBs and Mike's lawyer wrote back saying "foul".

That's a very interesting legal question! I have no clue except if that were a complaint, BAD could counter that Mike has bern promoting Bruce as an original member for years ( which he clearly isn't while David was on the first album and concert tour).

http://www.beachboysband.net/TOURSCH/BB_TOUR_SCH.htm

yes, absolutely

It's all very easy-the group with the most BB's in it gets to use the name-Sorry, mYke, you lost your hair and now you're probably gonna lose the name which you never should have had in the first place. And I don't care how much Brian makes from the lovesTer's road trips.

As much of a Myke Lover that I am, I really really just wish the guy would quit doing interviews....

Mike is an original Beach Boy too...

Absolutely!  But your point is?

Well, the name original Beach Boys implies ALL the remaining original Beach Boys are in the group. That wouldn't be true if Mike wasn't involved.

Too many legal ambiguities. One can certainly describe themselves as whatever they are. When it starts being applied to billings for shows, it gets into a grey area, as that "Billing" can morph into a "band name" sometimes.

He has it because Brian voted with Mike to give it to him.

David was addressed as an original Beach Boy when introduced at all the C50 shows. He did sign the orignal Capitol contract, so that gives him cred. Al has cred because he was on the first single. So unless lawyers get involved, they are all ORIGINALS, except Bruce.

Sure, Brian and Al could pull a power play, get that third vote, and change the terms of the license. But, what would that accomplish? You could force Mike & Bruce to give up the name, but you couldn't force them to tour with Brian, Al, and David. And then you have basically the same situation as you have now - a group calling themselves The Beach Boys who are not really The Beach Boys. And that would really make Al look like a hypocrite because he's going around spouting that Mike & Bruce aren't really the Beach Boys, but without Mike Love, they (he, Brian, and David) would be the real deal?

I can't see anything coming out of this. Melinda will never give up that direct deposit into the checking account.

Sure. Only obsessive fans care, as long as they play the hits, the crowd will be satisfied, right? Maybe they could even work in Kokomo once in a while on the encore.


Right, Brian's wife is the only selfish one here. The other spouses don't care about money and consider The Beach Boys a charitable operation to bring Mike Love to children in need.

Al is a fool. I like him as a musician, but as a person, he's kind of a jerk.

I have no problem with them wanting to call themselves "The Beach Boys," IF the license that was granted to Mike has expired. If it hasn't, they're SOL. I don't care about people who talk about "moral" issues, BRIAN is the person who voted to give Mike the rights, and he and his better half should have given it a heck of a lot more thought if they believed Brian might want the rights back at some point.  It's so stupid.  Yeah, they have been cashing the checks for their share of Mike's touring revenue, as has Al, so are they prepared to stop getting that money?

Don't they think they will suffer from audience confusion as to what band they're seeing, if there are will be if there are two Beach Boys name holders? Doesn't Al (or Brian) have faith in the name "Brian Wilson" as an act people will pay to see, as crowds have paid to see the past ten years plus? Or do they want to play all the types of venues that oldies acts such as Mike's inevitably will play?

Let them all fight it out in court. If that happens, I'd like to see a judge put a restraining order on ALL parties and make them ALL stop touring. Then issue a gag order to make them all shut the foo-bar up. They can all retire and leave people to listen to their old records. Fine by me.

Why would they have to do that? That's Mike's kick. He's the one with all those relationships with casinos in Biloxi.


Nah, I'd rather go see the Original Beach Boys do "Little Bird" live. That sounds fun!

(ducks)

Brian doesn't invite me to dinner or pay me, so I can't get that worked about about "poor Brian" being bullied by "mean ol' Mike Love" while he drives to LA steak restaurants in his Mercedes Benz in his Gucci shoes. And no, I don't care about hearing a mediocre song like "Little Bird" sung by a small bald troll.

Nobody said Brian, Al, and David want to call it The Beach Boys. They apparently want to bill themselves as original Beach Boys in a descriptive sense. They don't want to create a new band name for themselves. Tickets have already been sold for the tour billed as Brian Wilson and Jeff Beck.

Wow...somebody doesn't like Dave :(

Oh, my bad, I thought it was sung by Al, because Dave is tall, not short like Al (and Dave isn't so trollish/elfin). Point is, at this point, I could live without either group of 70 year old men touring. Their backing bands are  what make them sound decent, they could probably tour without the big guns in front and put on a good show.

I'm also not sure why AL of all people is making this argument. If Brian feels that way, then let him say it and present his argument. For all anyone knows, Al is talking through his hat and thinking aloud. If not, Al still shouldn't be talking about legal action. That's something for the lawyers to discuss behind the scenes, and whey they're ready, then make the public statements. If there's any chance to negotiate it without a court case, then Al is not doing a very good job of making that possible.

I doubt that a lawsuit is coming. Al is frustrated, but he probably would lose in court, and I think they're all tired of the lawsuits.  

I agree that Mike and Bruce calling their band "The Beach Boys" is ridiculous, but I also think a Brian Wilson / Jeff Beck act calling itself "The Beach Boys" is equally ridiculous. Robert Plant does not call his band "Led Zeppelin" or "The Original Led Zeppelin", and Paul McCartney does not call his act "The Beatles" (or even "Wings"!).

I am in love with KittyKat :)

So, yes. Let's piece this all together, shall we?

Joe Thomas is working with Brian's people to wrest control of BRI and certain rights to the name. This is the reason Mike high-tailed it out of the C50 tour when he did. He wanted to reestablish control over his operation and his rights to the name. It had nothing to do with a set number of dates. It had to do with who controlled the name and the future of the touring outfit.

If Brian, Al and Dave kept touring with Mike, Joe and Brian would reap huge rewards. With Mike on his own, Brian still gets a percentage, but he doesn't control the band, and JT is out of the picture entirely. Or at least that's what Mike hoped would happen. Instead, Joe and Brian's folk are mounting a carefully choreographed challenge to the current BRI structure. Intriguing stuff.

I never understood the folks who claimed that Brian and Al would never be interested in ending the "gravy train" from Mike's touring. How many years more can Mike do it? No more than 10 or so, tops. How much good would that extra money do for Brian or Al? Not much, if they've invested carefully.

No, at this stage the battle is about the end game. Think about it. There will continue to be a touring group called the Beach Boys after the principals exit. But would you rather that band be Cowsill, Totten, Kirsch and Christian, or Sahanaja, Foskett, Gregory, Mertens, Bennett, et. al? And who would control those bands? Whose family would the revenue go to? Both Melinda and Jackie will likely outlive their spouses by decades, and both have kids. Al has several sons who would love to tour with Beach Boys music too.

If you ask me, that's what the battle is ultimately about. Who will have the rights to the name for the next generation. If you think it's bitter and nasty now, just wait. It's only beginning.

There may be a publicity angle to some of this to get butts in the seats for the Brian shows.  Even if news stories run that say "Original Beach Boys" Brian, Al and Dave, that could tip oldies fans over into buying tix.  There may be no need to actually have the legal rights to calling themselves Original Beach Boys; just get journalists to do the job for them.

Right now, there are lots of people going to see M&B with absolutely no idea who makes up the band, but they know that they are seeing "The Beach Boys."

You sound pretty dead on accurate with all that. That battle is going to be fought extremely viciously and will make a lot of wealthy lawyers even wealthier.

A shame California Saga didn't stay active.

I don't think the band will carry on in name. This issue is about putting butts in the seats. Promoters want to bill BAD as "Original Beach Boys" Brian, Al and Dave" and not "Brian Wilson with special guests Al and Dave". I am guessing Mike interprets the license as not allowing billing as the former.

Sounds like it may end up in court..

If they problems with the terms then they can complain to themselves, they are their terms.

Excellent post, Wirestone. This may yet turn into a next generation "Dallas" thang...but that idea only had legs (and those were pretty shaky...) when Larry Hagman was alive. Without Brian and Mike, the gravy train is going to be a lot more dried-up. There's no one in the next generation who can really "keep the summer alive" in any meaningful way, which probably helps to explain why everyone is out there right now with guns ablazin'.

Best part of that Howie piece by far: the YouTube link to "Mess of Help." Ahh, Carl. And the Lovester in that terrycloth abominaton!! "Don't touch my jug/Or I'll pull the plug/Because I'm TAINTED WITH THE WILSON BLOOD!!"  :smokin

Hope the two of you will be as happy as two peas in a pod.

If there is a battle for the name further down the line then the consolation prize could be the losers get to tour as The Pendletones!

I honestly believe there will be a touring Beach Boys at some point in the future that will feature only Bruce.....

What a mess

I think Stamos is going to be fronting the band in 5 years.

This is quite the saga. I am going to need a lot of popcorn.

 ;D that's very good sarcasm there, Ontor.

Seems to me that Brian was gracious enough to lend his vote for Michael but in turn Mr. Love is unyielding to compromise.

There should be some way to work it out so both bands could use "Beach Boys" in their tours. Peter Noone and Barry Whitwam worked
out a similar arrangement with "Herman's Hermits".

Has Al forgotten what happened the last time he tried to use the words "Beach Boy" in his billing? Even if he has Brian on his side this time, fighting for use of the name, they'd still have to convince the estate of Carl Wilson to vote for them.

If you were Carl's relatives would you vote for the guy who's willing to play a gig anytime, anywhere at the drop of a hat or the guy who would happily never perform live again for the rest of his life if he had his way?

You know him pretty well, do you?

:) :)

This should effectively end this thread!

Congratulations.
Even by the standards of crap you usually write, this one's a winner!

This whole situation just keeps getting more and more pathetic. I feel slightly ashamed to call myself a fan amid all this, it's like high school soap opera sh*t. I really hope they can resolve the situation, but I doubt it'll happen.

Excellent insight, Wirestone.

I too am stocking up on popcorn.  ;)

No they're just good friends.

Popcorn and barf-bags ;P

yeah too much popcorn will result in excessive vomiting.

......And that's your smiley smile health warning of the day

or too much sugar and too much cake, you end up with a belly ache

Rb

where the hell were u when brian needed ya?

Its all a bit undignified for a bunch of seniors who should know better.

Lets just go all the way and have a idol type TV show with Simon Cowell. Mike and Bruce vs BAD.

i think that was legally established long before most fans began referring to him that way. Going back to '67, and the Capitol lawsuit he was called an original Beach Boy in legal filings due to his signature on the group's first major recording contract, and his presence on their first LP. I realize the caveat remains that he was not on the first indy single release, but that holds more significance as an aesthetic difference than a legal one. When the group got their professional legal sh*t together with a real lawyer, a real record label and the initial filings within the court system he was one of them. Mike would have to contradict himself if he was to now say David was not an original Beach Boy as he has said that he is/was numerous times, as have Brian and Al.

It's a silly topic..... Like, do people accuse Ringo of not being an original Beatle or Bon Scott not an original member of AC/DC?

Any possibility any new owners opt not to use 'The Beach Boys' should the rights to the name change hands? Al said a few things last year about the bands legacy and hardly seems to be needing the soup kitchen after 14 years of not touring. Brian doesn't need the money.

Would get my vote. Retire the name or use it if all the principles agree. Win-win!

Their music is often beautiful and harmonious, but everything about these guys from the legal/personal side is totally brutal. If they are expressing this level of animosity with each other in public, imagine how they must feel in private.

I think a lot more of it than it seems is between Mike and Al. They seemed really close for a long time, then they had the fallout. I doubt it pisses Brian off to see the Beach Boys touring and him not a part of it (at least up until the C50), but I bet Al has been angry about it ever since Carl died and the band broke up. I imagine he must have always thought he was going to be in the band.

I would agree but Carl's estate probably feeds quite a few mouths.  Doubt they would vote against Mike and his touring cash machine.

Yep. That would be my recommendation... not that it matters. None of these guys are hard up for cash. Retire "The Beach Boys" name so that it can only be used if everyone is on board. Anyone who wants to continue to tour with whatever relatives and friends they have, can do so. But, no one gets to be The Beach Boys unless they actually ARE The Beach Boys.

You'll know they mean business when Carl's kids are on the bill with Brian/Beck/Al/David/Original/Family/And/Friends singing Friends, Till I Die, and All This is That.

That's when you cut to Doctor Claw, er... Doctor Love's forehead vein pulsating.

(http://www.famousbirthdays.com/faces/love-mike-mid.jpg)

Stamos, release the hounds!

[/size]
Sorry. That's not really what I was referring to. What I meant (but didn't explain properly) was could David bill himself in the press as:

Original member of
The Beach Boys
David Marks

Could he sell tickets like that?

Or like Faust, be ultra confusing and both go out as The Beach Boys. Roll the die, you'll never know who you get! May or may not contain up to two actual if not original Beach Boys! Foskett sold separately.

Will it be car songs and Kokomo or melancholy chamber pop with a variably charismatic, generally seated frontman that's a cross between a baby and Beethoven? Test yer luck!

Hardly worth answering when he's out there at this moment with Brian and Al selling tickets.... If Brian and Al consider him an original Beach Boys, isn't that enough?

I know. I hate the thought of destitute millionaire families.

I don't think it has anything to do with that at the moment. They just want to sell tickets for their shows.

In the future though I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a touring band with no Beach Boys in it at all. If there is then from a business sense it would make a lot more sense for it to be Mike's band (that's if it contains any of the current touring band members at all). They could go out as a 5-piece and have plenty of experience of playing that type of venue and the hits sets.

Now it begins...

now it begins...

(http://crackbillionair.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/stamos.jpg)
(http://blog.feelingthevibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rc.jpg)
(http://fanart.tv/fanart/tv/117271/clearlogo/beach-boys-4e54ae6386ba0.png)

Isn't this what it's all about though? Al's comment implies that they want to start putting out promotional material telling people to come to see the shows in order to watch 3 original Beach Boys.

As they are all obviously allowed to call themselves Beach Boys in interviews then it can't be about that.

True though isn't it?

I wouldn't be surprised though if in the future The Beach Boys is made up of 5 kids who are willing to do it for a low salary though. It's a business.

Is Carl's family well off?  I sure don't know.  

I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be considering the money they must get from royalties and Mike's touring every year.

I agree though that it is very doubtful they would tour against Mike. They have always voted for him and also voted for Al to use the name as well if he paid them (which obviously he didn't) so I don't see why they would want any change.

I don't know. But, according to Internet searches, Al's worth 40 mil, Mike's worth 50, Brian's worth 75. None of the other guys are starving, and while we know Dennis blew through his fortune, I haven't heard any such thing about Carl.  So, unless Carl's family has to live on my income, I'm not quite buying into the idea that they need the cash. On the other hand, Easy Money.  Ain't life funny? Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

If any of the bands kids (in their 40s) are living off their dads income they need to harden up.

Just close your eyes and its 1965.

I just opened them after a terrible dream. Mike is in a wheelchair coaching the above guys. "Goin To The Beach....Goin To The Beach...Goin To The Beach" over and over! :old

Love Wirestone's post about the apocalyptic wars to come. Lots of hard nosed sense.

But at this stage is this not about a billing along the lines of:

BRIAN WILSON
and fellow original Beach Boys
Al Jardine, David Marks and Jeff Foskett
with special guest
JEFF BECK


?

(spot the deliberate joke I inserted into my serious post)

JEFF FOSKETT IS A BEACH BOY WHATS SO FUNNY

Yes, I did write that piece.

Regarding the "harshness" at the end -- if read in full -- it's a devil's advocate play on who the public really believes is "THE BEACH BOYS" -- Brian Wilson or Mike Love.
eg: (in very broad strokes) The guy who dreamed it all and made it from God -- or the guy that schlepped it all around the world on his back over and over.

For those of you who say Jeff foskett is a beach boy, you obviously have some screws missing...  :lol

Hmmm SchelpLove and Wonder Brooth with the Fun Surf Kokomo Band vs. Three Original Beach Boys backed up by musicians who can breeze through every track on PS, Smile and anything else the other band can perform.

Yep Michael is definitely the only logical choice to fully keep tbe legacy alive.

With due respect I would also say that it is a gross oversimplification of things and actually reads as fairly insulting to either Mike or Brian (or both).

It IS an oversimplification.
That's exactly the point.

That said, I think both acts -- one man being a conduit from God and another being a preacher, if you will,  of that message is about as far from insulting as one can get.
In fact, I think it's pretty spot on --  if I do say so myself.

I enjoyed the article, keep up the good work Howie.

Much thanks.

They are, in my opinion, "editorialized" questions.  "Brian is 'mentally diminished recovering drug addict' and Mike is 'jealous of ...Brian's talent and money' and, 'shouldn't have to answer' and 'fact of'" and a presumption of Brian's 1960's brilliance.

(Brian is still brilliant, in my opinion, it is not confined to a decade or era, and his health issues discussion, as long as he can perform the "essential functions of the job," I feel is a privacy invasion.)

But, I do like that there are links to actual responses or impressions on audio.  And good, to see the concert schedule.

I love Wirestone’s posts, I’m glad he’s back. Interesting theories about the Joe Thomas angle. One thing that gives me pause in this scenario is why seemingly a bit out of the blue, Brian’s camp has such strong allegiance and reliance on Joe Thomas. If Thomas was the one thing that truly actually pushed Mike into ending his involvement in the reunion (or at least was the main thing; or the breaking point, etc.), would Brian’s camp really jeopardize all of that just to stay involved with Thomas? Similarly, would they now really actually be letting Thomas start making serious power plays that impact the BRI organization? I just don’t know. Considering how all sides know very well how litigious things have been over the years, coupled with the fact that Brian and his camp had a pretty serious falling out with Thomas around 1999 or so resulting in apparent lawsuits, it just seems a bit wild that they would all of a sudden hand over so much power to Thomas and also be willing to stick with him even if meant losing Mike’s cooperation.

I’m sure it has to be more hazy and convoluted than that, but it’s hard to say. The hardest thing for me to buy is that Joe Thomas is seriously spearheading some sort of operation to have Brian and Al actually wrestle control of the license to the BB name from Mike. There hasn’t seemed to have been a serious desire on the part of Brian and Al to actually take over touring as literally “The Beach Boys.” They obviously have mixed feelings about Mike using the name, at least at this stage since he’s doing it now at the exclusion of more reunion shows, but I haven’t seen evidence that they want to take the license back.

If they did want to take the license back, or seriously invoke that possibility to make a power play for whatever reason, they would be doing it through lawyers and agents, not Joe Thomas. True, Thomas was/is more involved than a typical writer/engineer/producer; he had a stake in the whole touring operation. But after the last decade-plus of lawsuits including lawsuits over use of the band’s name, lawsuits that took place while Thomas was not involved with Brian, I find it hard to believe they would have Thomas coming back into the fold and motivating Brian and/or Al and/or their camps to start firing up corporate moves and potential lawsuits over the band’s name.

It appears that what we currently have between the “BAD” camp and Mike is simply a bit more snippy jabs. Mike tries to use pics and footage of Brian and Al on the video screens, Brian and Al say no. Brian and Al attempt to use “original Beach Boys” in promotional materials for the Wilson/Beck tour, and Mike may have implied that they need to watch it and not use the BB name in a way that would require a license.
I don’t think Mike or BRI as a corporation are going to actually sue Brian and Al (and David?) for describing themselves as “original Beach Boys” during an 18-date tour where the ticket stub says “Brian Wilson and Jeff Beck.” That would be a hard case for Mike or BRI to win, and a hard case for BRI to even launch considering Brian and Al would not support it.

Thank you Mr. Edelson, and please continue to write as much as you can on this subject. Your reporting and commentary has been invaluable in all of this. Your post on how the ending of the tour/reunion was f-ed up is still the best, most succinct commentary on the whole debacle. 

Quite frankly easy to say if you've never been in that position.  There are a lot of people (in fact I believe the majority of people) who would quit their jobs right now if they had an alternate source of income which didn't require them to do anything except roll up to the bank window at the first of every month and collect.

Howie, really? You're in the Mike-Hater's club too? Nothing like objective reporting these days. ;)

yeah howie is BAD.  ;D

First off, my understanding is there can be more than one license to tour as the Beach Boys or some variation of the Beach Boys (like Beach Boys family and friends) - but Al didn't want to pay the fees and use the tour management team dictated by BRI, so he was refused.

So if they wanted to, Brian, Al, and Carl's estate could outvote Mike and five a license to BAD to tour as "the original Beach Boys" or Brian Wilson and original Beach Boys Al Jardine and David Marks if they wanted to, correct?  If they did this, a percentage of the touring income would go back to all four voting members.

Mike's not just schlepping is he, he helped write most of the works from God that made the bands reputation. Preachers need a sermon and sermons need a preacher I suppose.

Howie could say that Mike puts syrup on his scrambled eggs and most folks here wold banish him to the Mike-haters Club.

No, he is credited thanks to a questionable 1994 lawsuit decision. A lawsuit that, on paper, Mike should not have won.

No working journalist has been more fair to all the individual Beach Boys than me.
None.

And even the strongest advocates of Mike Love would acknowledge the fact that his partnership with Brian Wilson is not, as in the case of Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards, a "chicken or the egg" scenario.
It's a different setup. The strength -- and honestly the point that most people are missing in my post -- is that Mike Love has carried this gig for the past 50-plus years (no quitting the road, no solo tour instead of, no being too loaded to make the gig.) If addressing that fact is "bashing" him, then I honestly don't know what saluting him smells like.

And for those of you who are hip to the inner-workings of this band, they know there's TRULY no black and white answers to anything regarding it.
The reason why BB 50 worked is because of MANAGEMENT. Say whatever you will about Joe Thomas, but his MANAGED the thing.
The Beach Boys finally had a guy with a lot of dough and a vision, clapping his hands and saying "OK -- here's what we're gonna do."
And he did it -- reunion tour, studio and live LP, TV special, TWO DVD's.
Quibbles aside -- all that sh it hit the market in a YEAR.

In my opinion, the band should have a person IN HOUSE who does that, someone like the late Neil Aspinall who was able to rally the business around Apple for the Beatles' best interests.
BRI has chosen not to follow the insanely lucrative, high-end example of Apple. It will continue to cost them dearly.
Not having a strong manager who sits down with his/her bosses and says: "What do we need to do to keep everybody happy" -- and then realizing it -- is the difference between McCartney, Ringo & the widows kissing each others asses on Larry King and where the Beach Boys are in 2013.

The reason why the Beach Boys always f uck it up is because they're rudderless and really have been since 1976.

And Joe Thomas made the decisions that he knew would put the five principals in the very best light possible.

I just want to say this was a great read. That "Larry King" appearance surrounding the "Love" project still sticks in my mind, for reasons good, bad, and uncomfortable, yet it happened and I can't forget it. It's insightful to relate it to the BB's saga, and something I had not considered.

I think the Neil Aspinall reference is apt, however in all fairness Neil was educated in business, that was what his training was in school. So in Neil, you had - let's call it what it is - the real "Fifth Beatle" along with the late Mal of course, who was not only in the inner circle of friendship and business going back to the early 60's Liverpool days, but one who had the skills and knowledge to effectively steer the ship as a businessman. And as someone who, by all accounts, did not suffer through bullshit or bullshitters out to hustle the band or their legacy.

So there may be the difference - Neil was a Beatle from the early days, and had the business skills to care for their interests and legacy when he was called to do so. The Beach Boys had no one at nearly the same time in history to do something like this, and had to essentially rely on either outsiders to be called in, or fall back on nepotism where family members who did not have the business chops to do the job were tasked with things they weren't equipped to do.

So the Beatles with Neil did have the upper hand as far as being the captain of the boat. The BB's, in Howie's words, were rudderless in that area.

Welcome to the board. Were you on the jury?

I totally agree, the band needs a strong manager that will tell members of the group what needs to be done and then somehow makes it happen.  Apparently, Mr. Love didn't care for Joe Thomas' control, but, there is no way to please everyone when so many are sort of dysfunctional.

Hear, hear.

Go Cam!  :kiss

It's Friday, and a double smiley brew for you!   :beer :beer

Very informative article, as usual, Howie. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Mike is preventing Al, David and Brian from billing themselves as Original Beach Boys? I did a random check of venues hosting the BAD/Beck tour and there is nary a mention of the name "the Beach Boys".

Thanks for being a regular conduit to the inner workings of the  band. Great reporting!

[blush]

For what it's worth in my opinion the talk of The Beach Boys bringing in a manager the likes of a Neil Aspinall at this point is ridiculous.  Brian Wilson and whomever he chooses to include in his act continues to draw money on a yearly basis.  "The Beach Boys" (or M&B as many of us, myself included choose to refer to them as) continue to draw money on a yearly basis as well.  The C50 showed that when you bring all the parties together you can open up streams of revenue not available to the two individual camps on their own.

But honestly at this point we are talking about very wealthy and successful men and in Brian Wilson and Mike Love's cases two men who have found lucrative streams of revenue in terms of drawing money on a consistent basis without having to associate with each other on a day to day basis.  As a Beach Boys fan, I would love to see the C50 lineup back in tact but honestly I just don't see the impetus from the perspective of the parties involved in doing something such as bringing in a manager to oversee the brand.  The reason being: The brand is actually functioning very well right now without one.

To answer JohnMill --

I can attest to the fact that Apple is working on numerous projects right now.

NUMEROUS.

And in 2013 The Beatles HAVE released product for its fan base -- a beautifully restored Blu-ray edition of HELP!, the previous year came Blu-rays of MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and YELLOW SUBMARINE.
Work continues on LET IT BE, which has been problematic since its inception.
As someone who knows a thing or two about Apple's inner-workings, it's a pretty tight, healthy, and well oiled machine with its directors agreeing on FAR MORE THINGS than not.

The reason that 2013 has been light is that 2014 marks the band's 50th anniversary of breaking America and the coming year will be a more important global milestone than this year.

But the underlying fact is that The Beatles are The Beatles and they don't need to do something every year for their fans. And that pretty much that. The brand couldn't be stronger and relations within simply could not be better.
 

With all due respect, I think you would find great argument against almost everything you wrote in your above posting (aside from the fact that The Beatles don't need to do something every year for their fans) if you had posted it at the Sulpy forums because it quite frankly flies in the face of almost everything I've read over there in the ten year period I've been visiting.  I'm not saying your or the opinions of the fans, scholars and scribes on those forums are more valid than the others as both could probably be viewed as subjective.  Therefore as a Beatles fan, much as I've been for most of my tenure as one I'll remain in a wait and see mode as it pertains to the future activities of the brand.  

Just FYI for anyone who might be wondering...although Howie has interacted on a personal and business level with the surviving Beach Boys, and written more widely read news updates and articles on them over the past decade than anyone in the US radio related press...he's more versed in Beatles really. He has written some truly groundbreaking and obsessively deep work on McCartney and the others, and I have trouble understanding how his brain and schedule have room for all of that considering he has two sons under the age of three. Thanks for pushing the envelope Howie.

I personally LOVE all the things you and Howie do Jon! Rock journalists with a days gone by vibe when rock revolutionized the world. We are even more lucky to have both of your insights regularly posted on the board. Thank you!

Is Henry Lazarus still alive?  ;)

And we'll have Fun, Fun, Fun still daddy takes the License away!!!  :hat

Your article was not just addressed to their fan-base. You really think listeners at Philly's WMMR are Beach Boys fanatics? Your lucky if you hear them on there once a year. While the article itself was fine, the question thing at the end was bush-league. You are baiting the reader. Of course there is no right answer, but seeing the responses on the page, you just incite the reader to take a side, of which there really is none.

Thanks, that was a nice gesture, and I appreciate the support.

Keep in mind the debates about the legacy and image of the Beach Boys is nearly the same as the battle Murry and Brian had at the end of '66, where Good Vibrations could either find new fan bases or alienate the old ones. Take nearly every debate from that point onward and it's the same issue replayed over and over. From Jack Reilly to The Dead to Endless Summer to Kokomo to 2013.

Is there an answer for who was ultimately right in that debate?

I think one of the reasons why The Beatles brand is so strong today is that, having called it quits conveniently at the end of the 60's, they didn't have the opportunity to mess with the image the public had in their minds by releasing material that was either questionable or in worst cases, piss-poor, and calling it a "Beatles" project. The legacy to be judged ended with the 60's, anything beyond that reflected more on them as individuals and solo artists. Save for two "Anthology" tracks.

Seriously, at any point after John's death, then George's, would anyone accept that a Paul and Ringo collaboration album or tour was a "Beatles" tour or album?

You are welcome Jon. But thank you!

I had read The Lost Beach Boy several years ago. Last year I had the great pleasure of meeting and talking privately with David backstage at a C50 show. Besides David being a super nice guy, I realized how superbly you had captured his persona in your book.

DrBeachBoy --

To clarify what I do. I write a syndicated feed that goes out to thousands of stations across North America. It is written primarily for DJ's to read on the air -- much like an interactive AP wire.
Some affiliates enjoy the "Side Notes," "Fast Facts" and "Ask Your Listeners" pieces written specifically for the jocks that they include them -- and audio -- for their web content, too.

Classic Rock radio news talks about TONS of bands you never hear played -- the Beach Boys being one of many.
FYI: Philly is one of a half-dozen East Coast Beach Boy strongholds in the country. Tremendous fan-base.
Classic Rock radio SOLD both the BWPS LP and its tour dates.
Never heard a single track from the album on the air.

Rock radio has many functions. Spinning Doobie Brothers hits is but one of them.

I write about Deep Purple, too. And when I do I write as though I'm talking to THEIR fan-base as well.

It doesn't matter what the public believes. It's a legal matter, and BRIAN voted to give Mike the license. It's Brian's responsibility for creating this situation in the first place. I would expect Mike to vote for Mike in a mater of the license. I would expect Carl's estate to vote for the act that has toured most consistently (or at the time of the vote, who toured AT ALL). Al is going to vote for Al. Brian made the decision to cast his lot with Mike. Not only did Brian vote for Mike on the tour license, Brian also sued Al at a later date as a member of the BRI suit that forced Al to stop touring and pay a ton of money in legal fees.

When do fans of "God" start making him responsible for his actions like the rest of us lowly human beings?

Hey Jude, I have to say and I hope you're not offended, but I agree with your above thoughts. You're having problems grasping the "Joe Thomas angle" because there isn't any (other than Joe maybe putting a roadblock on Mike writing with Brian in 2012). There is no plot or plan involving Joe Thomas and any kind of (re-)licensing issue. I believe posters who suggest one are seeking attention and enjoy sensationalizing things. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but the theory lacks any sense.

Every couple of days, all Melinda and/or various members of Carl Wilson's estate have to do is turn on their computer, go to their online banking website, put in their password and UserID - and chi-ching - they will see a direct deposit credit of thousands of dollars into their account. And what do they have to do to receive that money? Nothing. The point isn't what Brian (or anybody else) did in the past to deserve it. That's not the issue or the argument. The relevant point is that they made an agreement and everybody wins. They win because they are making money. Lots of it. And why would they want to change that? Because Al Jardine wants to call the group he is (temporarily) in The Beach Boys? For a couple of nights a year? Does anybody seriously think they would change the licensing, and forfeit all of that money (millions of dollars over time), to spite Mike Love? And for those who don't think that money drives everything - EVERYTHING - I ask you this question. Would Brian and Carl's estate ever vote to give Mike the license if Mike did NOT agree to paying them a percentage of the shows? If Mike would've said, "Screw you, I'm doing all the work. I'm not gonna allow you guys to sit at home and collect your money while I'm out there playing 100 shows a year....", do you think they ever would've voted to give Mike the license? Of course not. So much for how they felt about The Beach Boys' legacy. What legacy? $$$$$$$$ trumps everything.

This is about two angry, bitter men. Al Jardine was in his 50's when he was relieved of his Beach Boys' duties. It literally left Al out in the cold. Was there demand for Al as a studio session guitarist? Or a studio session singer? Al couldn't make a go of his Beach Boys Family & Friends Endless Summer Band. Did he even want to? Was there a lot of clamoring for an Al Jardine solo album? Al basically had nothing to do. Do you think put the blame for his "situation" firmly on Mike Love? And, guess what, Al got another chance to be a Beach Boy again with the C50 reunion, only to have things terminated again by who - Mike Love? And now Al has had enough. He was pushed too far, again, and he's speaking out about it. Unfortunately. I think these recent comments by Al is venting, letting his feelings out, feelings brought on by Mike Love. Al always says wacky things in interviews, and this recent "license" comment is nothing different. I don't read much into it.

And Mike? I recently posted that I think Mike is an overall happy person, but still bitter because his songwriting partnership ended over 30 years ago - and never resumed. It was bad enough that Mike had to endure and wait out Eugene Landy, who tried to distance Brian from Mike and the band. But, as soon as Landy leaves, Melinda enters the picture, and she is determined to facilitate a solo career - one that is now 25 years old - for Brian. So, Mike has to wait that out, and, when he finally gets another chance to write with Brian again in 2012, Joe Thomas supposedly (I don't know that as fact, pure speculation) prevents it from happening. I think Mike reached the point of total frustration, and is now airing his feelings in public. Obviously, Mike is looking at this with a historical perspective. And, that's Mike perspective, not everybody's. The songs that Brian and Mike wrote will be heard/played (in some mode or fashion) until the end of time. The songs that Brian wrote post-1985, as a solo artist, without Mike, will not. Mike just wants another chance at making musical history. While his performing in concert is lucrative and enjoyable, it might not be as fulfilling as writing with Brian. 

I just wish they didn't air their feelings in public. These kind of things DO add to their legacy. It just adds another sentence or two or three to the paragraph about The Beach Boys' in-fighting.

Your news feed is the best, in my opinion,news source  for Classic Rock Lovers. Essential daily reading for me. It's where, for example, I found out the Zombies were touring the US this summer (And now I am going to finally get to see my all time favorite vocalist, Colin Blunstone). As the Hollies once sang Howie, Write On!

Re: Philly radio...When WYSP was the classic rock powerhouse in Philly, up to the early 90's, they spun Beach Boys albums and concerts and sometimes individual tracks but didn't play BB's singles during prime time weekdays. The only Philly station I've heard that regularly spins BB's and Brian tracks is 88.5 WXPN from U Penn, but they're public radio. Even the "oldies" station has been spinning more 70's and 80's then 60's, which is sad but they're chasing their demographic who want to hear 70's and 80's.

I think one of the grand misconceptions regarding Classic Rock radio and the Beach Boys is that despite that format and the biases dating back to early FM free-form formats, the folks listening to Classic Rock radio know that they can go to a Beach Boys show or spin a Beach Boys record and have a great time, and it's always been that way.

Audiences are not that swayed by their radio station format of choice playing or not playing a band like the Beach Boys. There are plenty of bands who don't get played regularly yet have loyal and large fanbases in spite of it.

Are you Joking?  :o

Apple has put out a lot of junk, T-shirts, white pens, etc.  This is rubbish, mate.

I enjoyed the Love CD and even LIB-N, but where are Shea, The Hollywood Bowl, White Album demos (Kinfauns), additional BBC sets, other live sets, plus there are plenty more pieces in the vaults that would be of vital interest of uber-fans and casual ones too.  Apple is sitting on their collective keisters and producing loudified KRAP-o-la.

AND WHERE WAS THE 50 YEAR PLEASE PLEASE ME BOX SET HAH?

Apple is rubbish.

If anything, this thread has been helpful in letting us confirm that

Andy Botwin = Joe Thomas

KittyKat = Bruce Johnston

Are YOU joking???

Apple's not rubbish.
Apple is a business and it's smart.
When you over-saturate the market ala Hendrix and The Doors you end up fringe.
Being Number One means that big things have to be done big.
(Do you really think Hollywood Bowl/Shea/Let It Be/Complete Video Collection WON'T happen?)

The 2009 remasters/iTunes deal along with the DVD reissues since are plenty until next year.
It's business.

I've never confused Beatles "apparel, etc." as being Apple's "new release."
S hit like that makes some people really happy.
As long as you don't have to wear it, who cares.

I love seeing a little kid in a Beatles shirt, don't you?

I don't know where this talk of stripping Mike of the license comes from. No doubt Brian, Al and Carl's estate enjoy the cash. And they do nothing for it. The report is BAD want to bill themselves as Original Beach Boys' BW, AJ and DM. Do they need a license to do that? This is the question. Apparently Mike's camp is saying yes.

And to blame this on Al's personal bitterness against Mike.... well, Brian and David are not ones to go out and do interviews on controvery. Possibly the BAD mgt team is making Al the spokesperson, so to speak?

BAD management team = Brian's management team. I would hope they're not using Al in that way. Not after the way Brian has treated Al over the years, including refusing to speak to him at the Hawthorne wall dedication and firing him from a  BW solo tour earlier in the decade.  I would at least hope it's just Al speaking for himself and not under anyone's orders.

I have trouble seeing the extent of the Joe Thomas angle. But it IS there, unless Mike had been talking about somebody else in these interviews. I just feel like Mike still refuses to specify precisely what has bugged him about the reunion. The things he has specified are presumably some if his gripes, but I think he is deflecting away from some reasons. He won't talk about ego and personal finances and business arrangements (and he doesn't have to of course) in detail, and I think those things had to play a role as well.

ha ha -- now THIS was funny!  Nice one.

So, where was the 50 year Please Please Me Box Set, hmmm?

Oh right, it never happened............. Good job Apple.  (I don't think "over saturation" is something they worry about, hmmm?)
Apple has never ONCE done a fan survey to see what fans might want, and it's because they are only in it for the Money.  Nothing wrong with money of course, but perhaps they could toss us a bone every decade or so.  How long ago was Anthology?

Sorry for the highjack... and now back to bashing Mike Love!   >:D

signed

Former Sulpy Board Member  :afro

I received a "Rubber Soul" coffee mug for Christmas and it's fantastic. I love it. I also like seeing anyone sporting a Beatles t-shirt of any kind, and it makes me think why couldn't the right strings have been pulled in order to get the iconic Frank Holmes "Smile Shop" album cover printed on a T-shirt and promoted more widely from within the BB's organization?

If I saw a person wearing one in a random place I'd go over and introduce myself, and if I saw a kid wearing one I'd probably start to cry.

I guess you told me! Like you said in your post above, there are no black and white answers. So, since you said that, that is why I commented regarding your "Ask Your Listeners".  You basically asked is it black or is it white?

Thanks for clarifying what you do. And seriously, I didn't know. I mean, I know you are a writer, but not about the syndicated feed, etc.

Lastly, I am no doctor. Just my initials. is all. Notice I don't capitalize the "d". I'm a Beach Boys fan first and foremost. Lately, I tend to defend Mike. Not because I want to, but rather because he gets a bad rap on EVERYTHING. Brian tends to get a pass, because he's Brian, so if something goes in the shitter, it must always be Mike's fault.

And DITTO to what ORR said!  Howie is top notch!

Why? When you are an abused child, it is unfair to hold them to the same standards as you would for someone who wasn't. What is this fascination that some fans have with "making Brian responsible for his actions" ? Wasn't growing up as Murry's son punishment enough?

You didn't hear? Melinda actually married Al as well and makes all of his decisions for him. It's one of those modern California arrangements, so we can blame her for that too.


There's a slow process where you start resembling your favorite Beach Boy. It starts innocently enough... a beard begins to sprout, say. Baseball cap material forms on your scalp and bursts through the skin. Or maybe you find yourself behind a big fake piano, the corner of your mouth starting to curl upwards and to the side. Or you start wearing white suits and idly wondering which folk songs need covering. Maybe you just find yourself during quiet moments festooning fingers with precious jewels and pointing at random people. You identify. This sh*t is PERSONAL! All along, you insist you're objective, fair, reasonable. Seeing all sides.

From your DEAD MIKE LOVE EYES!

I don't like seeing little kids in Beatles shirts.

Corny as it sounds, but I do too.

 :lol :lol :lol

That may make this author shown on the left the biggest Mike Love fan of all:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/mikekimmel3.jpg)

I think the Beach Boys should change their name to The Snippy Jabs.

Speaking of Beach Boy writers, AGD should be out of lock-up any day now.

Maybe he will have some insight into the nuisances of this licensing issue?

If BAD promote their concets as the original Beach Boys, they are infringing on the exclusive license that Mike has, and will probably lose a lawsuit, if one is filed.  Al has a bad track record in the litigation department and ought to learn from his mistakes.  It's Brian, David and Al and leave it at that.  Focus your energies on creating some new music worth listening to and avoid conflict.

Nurse Ratched was going to load him up with meds, and hopefully he’ll be good to go!   >:D

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/Nurse_Ratched.jpg/300px-Nurse_Ratched.jpg)

I don't really think any adult can be given a free pass based on stuff that happened 60 years ago.

This is untrue. The first thing that happened when Brian married Melinda was that he worked with the Beach Boys again, and wrote with Mike again. At the time, she was very encouraging of his work with the group, and believed that he was a Beach Boy at heart. You can blame Don Was and Van Dyke Parks for Brian releasing solo records in '95.

Melinda (and Brian) changed their tune after Carl scuttled the 95 sessions, after Carl insulted Brian by saying he wasn't capable of touring Pet Sounds live with the group in 96, and after the relative commercial failure of Mike's Stars and Stripes project. Carl's death then helped seal the deal.

So, which of you guys has started sporting white short shorts? And, when will pictures be available?

Man, I wish Elvis Presley Enterprises would be as excellent as Apple and the Beatles' guys in promoting and keeping the legacy intact. What EPE is doing is just total rubbish. Embarassing, ridiculous and plain dumb trash.

You look at Beatles shirts and even them look good and have style. And than compare that to the anniversary shirts of last year's Beach Boys tour that looked like they weren't sold back in the 70s.

Not "The Original Beach Boys." It's like Gregg Rollie promoting himself as the Original Lead Singer of Santana. Original "Members" is the distiction. They still may need a license to even do that. Maybe BRI will be voting on just that.

Fingers crossed. Been hoping for this forever. And one more Anthology CD. There is enough in the can for more. Like the full Decca Audition tape.

EGAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Friday everyone!

Can't WE just join together and sue the Beach Boys for attempted murder of their legacy???

Didn't CREED fans basically sue the band out of existence?

 ;D

(well I assume you were being sarcastic!)

How does Mike legally own the Beach Boys name? Can't Brian, Al, and Carl's estate legally revoke the rights? In my opinion, that should happen now. Mike Love's band should not be allowed to call themselves "The Beach Boys." Only when the group is reunited as they were last year should the name apply. This band just keeps doing everything it can to tarnish its legacy.

He doesn't.


Perhaps. It's unclear if Mike's license to the name has an expiration date, or if it runs in perpetuity. If it's the latter, it might be very difficult to take back, unless Mike had breached the terms of his contract in one way or another.

How did Mike ever attain such a ridiculous arrangement? If there's not way for it to expire, and the other guys agreed to it at one time, that's a really dumb business move by them. You don't just let one guy hit the road with the name and basically do whatever he wants with it. The group still has a brand to protect.

I'm in!

I don't think whoever would currently have the naming rights in a situation like this could use it anyway they want. Most of these agreements come with stipulations so that you cannot have a situation where a product so substandard or even deceptive to the audience could be passed off under a well-known name. I always thought it was like buying into a restaurant franchise, where if the food quality or the experience of the restaurant itself was not living up to the standards of the brand, the franchise could be taken away from that owner.

Example, you couldn't sell your own home recipes or meals in your McDonald's location if you bought into that franchise.

It all depends on what was agreed, but I can't see something less than respectful being agreed to and signed in a legal agreement. Whatever they did sign, it was used to legally force Al to remove "Beach Boys" from the billing of his tour, so there was some merit from a contractual/legal sense to whatever was agreed whether they liked the results or not.

It has been suggested by folks on here that to keep the license, Mike has to adhere to a pretty strict list of rules. One assumes that has to do with number of musicians, length of shows, presence of another longtime member, etc., etc. That would prevent the name from being overly misused, one would hope (and I see guitarfool beat me to it).

As for the possibility of a license with no set end date -- I don't think that anyone in 1998-1999 assumed that Brian would have a serious touring career, least of all him. Carl's vote is held by an estate. Al didn't have a realistic plan to tour with the name himself. Mike had been de facto leader of the touring group (with Carl as musical director) for decades. One can argue that the decision made sense, given the time and context.

Obviously, the times (and context) change.

Disagree 100% and unfortunately it's a debate that you and I and anyone else should they care to get involved could have until next Tuesday.  I'm not trying to say that adults in the most general shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.  Society, the laws that govern us, moral and ethical codes see very well to all that.  However, I am so tired of hearing the section of the population that espouses the "get over it" and "move on with your life" mantras towards people who have suffered physical and emotional abuse in their childhood.  It's not something you ever get over or ever truly move on from.  Some cope better than others in terms of how they carry on with their day to day adult lives but emotional trauma suffered during childhood especially early childhood has a tendency to "go through" the victim and that is why so many can't "get over" it.  It becomes an inherent part of who that individual is whether he/she likes it or not.  Now how far it tends to dominate an individual's life of course varies on a case to case basis but I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who suffered greatly early on in life and has had their life marked by those experiences.

Free pass?  It depends what your definition of a "free pass" is or how far you extend such notions.  But a great deal of sympathy, compassion and understanding as to what happens emotionally to a person who has gone through those traumas and how those traumas can and often do shape that person's life and psyche in a way that is different from you or I?  I'd say that person is entitled to all of that if not a great deal more from the rest of us.

To add to Wirestone's comments, realizing the legal details are far beyond my knowledge, it will be interesting to see if the present times and context could have any effect on that old agreement. There was a time when releasing anything cohesive and archival under the "Smile" name was a fantasy, then look what happened.

Will the fact that you now have an actual Beach Boys tour and album on the record with all surviving members on board rather than factions (which could set a new precedent for what constitutes using the name Beach Boys on a project) affect in any way how that name is used in the future? I'm talking strictly in terms of what was previously agreed to and what the context was at that time versus what they were revised to include when they all got together as The Beach Boys.

The legal mumbo-jumbo alone behind these issues and agreements must be a massive stack of documents and revisions.  ;D

I think it does people with mental illness and past trauma a disservice to somehow claim they're not responsible for their actions. Too many people absolve Brian of a proactive role in his life and career, and it leads to problematic narratives of exploitation. Now, I'm sure that Brian has been taken advantage of at various points -- and it's difficult to look at what he did in the late 70s and much of the 80s without taking his real and serious problems into account.

But he has been stable and under quality treatment for some 20 years now. And I've also read enough and heard enough to believe that he's not a child, and that he has his own creative and personal agenda. And we should give him the credit as an artist and a person to judge what he does in those terms. If he tricked and exploited Mike for this new project, that's just what he did (and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised). Brian has always been a person who used others  -- and then ignored or discarded them when they didn't suit his purposes.

This is one of the big reasons that Mike pulled the plug on the C50 when he did, IMO. A semi-permanent reunion of the five principals would have diluted the value of his license, and possibly ultimately made it harder for him to defend it in a legal context. And if he got wind of any efforts to change the BRI status quo, I'm sure he sprang into action. Also, note the words he's using in interviews now -- things like betrayal and untrustworthy. You don't say stuff like that about writing credits. You do about you livelihood as a bandleader.

I think everything needs to be taken in moderation.  Those Beach Boys fans who believe that Brian Wilson is merely a puppet on a string for others to with what they please are obviously wrong but to make a blanket statement and say that Brian Wilson is the driving force behind all decisions that pertain to him and the professional side of his career well maybe there is a possibly the the people who don't buy into that logic aren't necessarily wrong either.

I don't view Brian Wilson as being the cunning type of individual to go into a project whether it be the C50 or whatever with an agenda that will only serve his purposes or needs.  I just don't see there being this huge conspiracy in place last year which ultimately resulted in Mike Love dropping out of the band and putting and end to the C50.  I think that is a bit too "Oliver Stone" for my liking and probably based in some type of revisionist history in an effort not to necessarily cast anyone associated with The Beach Boys (in this case Mike Love) as a villain.

But I don't think we really need to look for a villain or a victim here.  I think at the end of the day these are just people with different philosophies on how they want to do business.  Brian Wilson obviously has a business model that works very well for him and according to Mike Love something within the scope of that business model rubbed him the wrong way.  Mike Love also has a successful business model which he had the option of returning to rather than acquiescing to Brian Wilson's business model and that is where we essentially are today.  

Let me rephrase it for a question, if anyone is versed in the law and legal issues around this it would be great to hear your take:

Would there be any grounds for a party involved with "The Beach Boys" as an entity to attempt to terminate the current agreement on the use of the Beach Boys name and identity based on the fact that a tour, album, and merchandise have been sold while that name represented a band with Love, Wilson, Jardine, Marks, and Johnston on stage and participating in making the album?

Or could it be suggested in pure legal terms that once the brand name is used to represent that entity featuring all surviving members associated with that brand name, the definition of that brand name then becomes that version of the branded product rather than something other than that lineup of original members?

I'm not taking sides or provoking anything here, just interested if there would be any legal issues this might spark in the future.


EDIT: Wirestone beat me to the punch on the reply, but I guess the question is whether someone can legally challenge how a person using the brand name is actually working as that name in light of the brand recently being reinvented by additions of original members.

I don't know the legal ramifications as I'm obviously not privy to that knowledge.  But even as a mere observer and using my own subjective viewpoint, I get the feeling that something significant happened in regards to the brand after the C50 collapsed last year.  It seemed that this agreement that had been working so well essentially since Carl Wilson's passing, well now there seems to be a fly in that ointment.  It could be something as simple as someone realizing that the Beach Boys brand can still draw a significant crowd in 2012 and going forward those individuals interested want to maximize that potential going forward.  Obviously that type of thinking would be of great concern to the incumbent (in this case Mike Love) who is drawing healthy crowds of his own by his use of the brand name.  

In that could very lie the conflict which may have been brewing as far back as last October, who knows?  So I'm not sure if it's incorrect for any of us to assume at this point that in regards to these matters that the temperature in the room has changed?  

Watching the available footage for BAD gigs, I hate to say it, but Brian doesn't look at all happy or into it or thrilled to be there..... I know people behind the scenes who say the opposite, but based upon my own two eyes, it's just uncomfortable to watch. Sure, he has stage-fright, but I can't help thinking: just let the man stay home if he wants to ...... Brian being out there just seems to be for the benefit of a whole lot of people who aren't Brian.

I know this is an ages-old argument by this point, but still...... It's just nausea inducing watching this saga play out and I'm starting to hate everyone involved..... everyone..... except Dave.

Well said, and I believe right on the money.

Brian never looks comfortable on stage whether he enjoys it or not. I've even been to shows where he starts out like a zombie, loosens up later, then goes right back to looking zoned out. There is no way that he has toured this long and hates it. It could just be the meds, but he's a trooper, I'll give him that. :)

Brian looked miserable during the first C50 shows but no one could have predicted how well he improved half way through the tour and then in London....

A couple of things...the post where we become our favorite BB is hilarious.  Someone must walk around randomly adjusting things in front of them constantly, wearing shorts, and clapping.

Second,  what happens when there is a 2-2 tie on a BRI vote? I have always wondered this. This is something that one would think is very possible in the near future.

At the Camden, NJ show last year, he looked stoned faced through the first few songs, but came to life as soon as he started singing his leads. He's just not a smiley, emotional type guy. I think this year having Al and Dave there to help MC takes a lot of pressure off Brian, so he can just perform and leave most of the talking to the other guys.

He "attained" it through a vote by people who were more interested in money than legacy. In my opinion, I don't think anything has changed, other than Al's venting in public, which I think is as much a personal vendetta against Mike Love than anything else.

I always felt Mike had the most to lose from agreeing to reunite. The ability to sell his BB show depends on the casual fan thinking of the BB as a faceless entity. But in 2012, the BB were everywhere: Walmart, network TV shows that didn't involve Uncle Jesse, Jazzfest, Bonnaroo, magazine news stands.  Did Mike really think after the amount of publicity the reunion generated that he could comfortably slip back into the status quo without at least being questioned?

My statement is true. Melinda is on record as saying that she would facilitate Brian's solo career. She said (and I paraphrase only slightly), "You're (Brian) not going to have a solo career where you simply throw an album out every couple of years..." And she kept that promise - unfortunately. And I say unfortunately because of the "product" that was thrown out there. To deny that Melinda was NOT instrumental in facilitating Brian's solo career would be wrong. Yeah, you can credit Was and Parks with the 1995 releases, but you seem to be ignoring the following 18 years.

The last information I'm aware of is the license and terms originally put together by all of the BRI for Mike to use an exclusive license were still the terms for the non-exclusive licenses for Mike, Al, and Brian and is in force still for Mike. Don't take that to the bank and I don't know anything beyond what was published by the Court of Appeals.

I don't know about mental illness but imo Brian has never been anybody's puppet. He is in control of everything he wants to be in control of and anybody else is only in control of whatever he doesn't care to control. Murry didn't control him, none of the BBs controlled him, Capitol didn't, Landy maybe but I doubt it, nor Melinda. Jmo.

That's the thing, because as much as they snipe at each other, nobody is pissed enough to call Mike out to stop. Too much money to lose for all involved. For Brian and Al it's a double pay day.

With Melinda, I'd say she exerts her influence. What wife doesn't. ;)

My wife doesn......what's that dear?...gotta go.

:lol Ain't that the truth.

Melinda said that around Imagination's release in 1998. Not "as soon as" Landy left the picture, which was six years prior.

My point was simply that Melinda, who had been married to Brian for three years at that point, and dating him since the late 80s, did not somehow force him into a solo career. It was merely another step in a long progression. When they married (and for that matter, when they were dating), she tried to facilitate a Beach Boys reunion. The other members of the group balked. When a solo opportunity came up, she then pressed Brian to pursue it (although even then, Carl planned to sing on Imagination, and Bruce appeared at the promo concert).

I mean, if you're a devoted spouse, at a certain point you have to press your other half to do what you think is best for them and their mental health. The Beach Boys of the mid- to late 90s didn't trust Brian as a producer or performer and didn't like his songs. So why work with them?

I'll take the chance to say it now, Cam, that at least on this point, I agree with you 100 percent.

OK, Wirestone. Dr. Landy was officially disbarred from treating Brian Wilson in 1992, and Brian began seriously dating Melinda in 1994, maybe 1993. So, if you want to take exception with my phrase, "as soon as Landy leaves, Melinda enters the picture", knock yourself out.   

I never said that the quote I used about Melinda's "facilitating" was made at the beginning of their relationship; it doesn't matter when she SAID it. I used the quote/paraphrase to illustrate that Melinda was actively facilitating Brian's solo career, which she was. She said it.

I also didn't say anything that implied Melinda "forced" Brian into situations, so I don't know why you are bringing that up. You seem to be defensive about that issue.

In your above post, you stated that "The Beach Boys of mid-to-late 90s didn't trust Brian as a producer or performer and didn't like his songs" Correct me if I'm wrong - and I mean that seriously - but wasn't Carl Wilson the only Beach Boy who walked out of the sessions? As far as trusting Brian as a producer, do you really think there is anybody in the music industry that DOES trust Brian Wilson to produce an album, without assistance?

But, my question to you, Wirestone, is why are you taking exception with my opinion/statement/post that Melinda "facilitated" Brian's solo career. Actually, I thought it was a well-known, established fact.

Don't worry too much about the doctor. He likes to prescribe chill pills to everyone here but refuses to take any himself-as you can see by his posts. he's severely sensitive(for a message board, that is) and it appears that he may be on the verge of a slow, shattering breakdown as mYke luHv's picnic band moves toward disintegration. :angel:

You're misunderstanding my points, and I seem to be misunderstanding yours. If your sole point was the Melinda helped Brian with his solo career, then sure, that's public knowledge.

Your posts, however, suggested to me that you believe that Melinda's aim, as soon as she married Brian, was to establish him as a solo artist and separate him from the group. You were talking about it in relation to Mike writing with Brian, IIRC. And yet, Melinda did facilitate Brian working with the group, and writing with Mike (which he did actively in 1995). He appeared on Baywatch with them, for Pete's sake. So I don't think it's fair to paint Melinda as some sort of barrier. The other guys did that.

You also conflate two separate points when you write:


There's a difference between not trusting and walking out. Carl was the only one to ditch the sessions, to my knowledge. But Mike, by his own account, wasn't an enthusiastic participant in recording Wilson-Paley material. And the group in general wanted Brian working with a younger, hip producer. According to Melinda, in the Carlin book, this really irritated Brian.

I don't think the producer trust business has to do with believing Brian can do it on his own, 100 percent. Few folks from that era can (even Dylan, who self-produces these days, essentially has his engineers co-produce). It has to do with trusting the people he collaborates with and wants to make records with. The group had problems with that then, and from the sound of it, Mike has problems with that now.

What I believe is somewhere in between, quite frankly. But that's not important.

The main point that I was trying to convey was what Mike Love must've felt along the way in being thwarted from writing with Brian. And, I was trying to stay on topic and address what Mike Love is feeling - in the fall of 2013 - and why he is saying the things he is saying. Yes - or no - depending on your point of view, Melinda was not opposed to a reunion 100% of the time, and she was not pro-solo career 100% of the time for the entire 20 year relationship she and Brian shared. But, the bottom line is, since they began a serious relationship, Brian Wilson was overwhelmingly a solo artist and rarely a Beach Boy. And, Wirestone, you're a knowledgeable BW solo fan, wasn't Melinda an INFLUENCE, A FACILITATOR - as a spouse, as an unofficial manager, as an unofficial conservator, as someone who didn't like Mike Love - on/for every solo project that Brian Wilson did during that time frame? That's all I'm saying, and that's what I believe Mike Love was thinking for the last 20 years. I know you take exception to that, like somebody is attacking Melinda or belittling Brian. But, really, don't you believe that Mike Love believes that SOMEBODY was influencing Brian's career choices over the last 20 years, and influencing Brian to NOT go back to The Beach Boys, and that person was Melinda? And, then, after 20 years, Mike finally gets past that obstacle, and he meets another one in Joe Thomas. Mike has had it! I think my theory makes perfect sense!  ;D

Edit: Oh, I forgot something... Wasn't Melinda's "openness" to Brian being a Beach Boy very early in their (Melinda and Brian's) relationship. The things you mentioned - the Was sessions, Orange Crate Art sessions, and Baywatch - weren't they in 1994-95? After that spurt, 1995 onward, it was pretty much focusing on Brian's solo touring and recording wasn't it?

The two started dating in the mid- to late-80s, I believe (I want to say '86 -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3554479/Brian-Wilson-a-Beach-Boys-own-story.html). I think Melinda knew all of the family business quite early, and IIRC worked alongside Carl and the band to get Landy out of the picture (she's an anonymous interview in one of the notorious TV news reports that exposed the Landy relationship for what it was).

As for the timeline, Brian worked with the Boys in 1995 and 1996 (S&S came out that year). He then spent time working on Carnie and Wendy's record in 1997, and was mulling kind of a family group arrangement with them. Then Imagination started up, but the plan was still tentatively to do a Beach Boys record afterward (Brian did the same thing in 1988 and 1989, after all -- releasing BW88 and then appearing on several tracks on Still Crusin'.)  The fact that a chunk of TWGMTR material dates from 98-99 backs that theory up.

Carl's death changed everything -- not just for Brian, but for Al and Mike and Bruce, too. (The other thing, IMO, is that JT assembled a touring band. And Brian began looking to those folks for musical and life support. It really changed his outlook, I think.)

EDIT: And for the record, I'm sure Mike did blame Melinda during the 2000s for the lack of any new BW/ML collaborations. It's only sensible, from his perspective. That being said, the fact that she did encourage them to write together in the mid-90s surely counts for something, as did the fact that Brian asked Mike to write some lyrics for a tune after the Capitol rooftop meeting (Mike refused). And Mike suing Brian over BWPS couldn't have helped matters, either ...

Mike refused because he wanted to write IN A ROOM TOGETHER. Nothing else counts.

All this talk about Mike wanting to be alone with Brian ... alone ... together ... in a room?

Does it strike anyone else as a little bit creepy? Just asking ...

Yeah, Mike's demands seem kinda strange. Its a total control situation or nothing for Mike to work with Brian.

Only if Mike requests smooth jazz playing in the room and a certain type of body lotion and Brian atop the piano in only speedos like...... Oh, nevermind. The "together in a room" thing is highly metaphorical!

Isn't the idea of Brian, Mike, AND Joe Thomas alone in a room even more creepy???

i think Mike is meaning that he just wants be work with Brian like how they started out in the early days, and without other parties chipping
in and other forces intruding...

RickB

The astonishing thing is Mike has been able to slip back into the status quo very easily. The general public don't seem to be too bothered about all of this stuff if the attendances are anything to go by.

I think we maybe making something out of nothing in this thread anyway. Al doesn't give any indication in that interview that he is going to try and take Mike's right to tour as The Beach Boys away. No more than before anyway as Al had always voted against Mike. Nothing has changed there.

Fear the mullet

if Al didn't have so much pride...... the only other thing that would make sense..... is if Al and Dave went with Mike and Bruce, and continued as
The Beach Boys, and let Brian do his thing.....
It doesn't seem Dave would be too fussed either way, he seems a pretty cool cucumber.....

That would seem feasible to me...

RickB

:lol

Why would Mike want that?

You need to read posts. You do know how to read, right? I can't be sure, because you surely don't know how to spell. You of all people should never call anyone out for being one-sided. At least I tried to give a reasonable explanation to Howie why I posted what I did. I didn't post to be a smart-ass. He said one thing here, while delivering it a bit differently in his article. If I misunderstood, so be it.  I take it back, you really should listen to your own advice.

I would love to see a 'Big Brother' type of TV show with all five Beach Boys locked in a (beach) house with their instruments and forced to write songs before they could get out. Great reality TV? There are other bands that could do that show.

Listen. If these guys can't sit down and write songs in true peace and harmony then why force it? Maybe Mike is being sincere with his request that he and Brian sit in a room together alone. Just like the old days? Maybe. I wish it could happen.

After seeing Brian, Al, and David in concert, yeah, they deserve to be called THE BEACH BOYS.

That show is a great idea! ;D

I don't think the quality of the performances of the two groups matters in that respect though. It's all about the legalities...

Yeah, you fleshed it out with Howie. That's just OSD doin his comedy shtick.

(http://cdn.meme.li/i/o72zz.jpg)

Also ...

(http://i.qkme.me/3visa1.jpg)

ain't that the truth.... :lol :lol :lol

:lol

 :o

Yeah, that's scary.

Ironically,  there are several Radio promo video shots with just Mike and Brian in a control room.

well, if Mikie had Alan and Dave on side, that would give more weight to Mike with having 'original' Beach Boys with him......
it would be THEM against Brian and his people......... which would make Bri look like the bad ass for not joining the rest...
Mike's version would then have more pull as to who are 'The Beach Boys'.

RickB

New music from Brian about Mike. Don't know how I missed this:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbfQBFq6N-4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcbfQBFq6N-4

It doesn't seem that Mike needs any more pull though. He is already selling tickets without Al or David so wouldn't want to pay them (or include Al as they obviously don't get on).

And I haven't heard anything about Brian maybe voting to try to revoke Mike's license at all.

As I don't think the C50 tour was ever going to be sustainable I think it would have been great if those 4 guys could have toured with Scott T, Randall, Bonhomme and Cowsill as an 8 piece band while Brian worked in the studio. But there was never any realistic chance of that happening.

yeah man..... its all a mess, I agree with what your saying......

actually, if the guys wanted to all work together properly, the ideal way would be to do it the way they had been since 65...

let Brian stay home, write and produce, with and without Mike, and Brian can appear as he wanted to with the rest of the guys when he felt fit too.....

but, that's in a dream world, I know......... the reality is a LOT different......

It would have been interesting to know what would be happening if Carl was still with us...... how that would effect the situation(s)..?.....

RickB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRU972iKRsQ

"I've seen happier-looking bloodhounds."

These videos are earthshaking insights into the luv-hate relationship between Brian and Mike.

Mike doesn't need them to pass his band off as the Beach Boys, so why bother paying them when he can pay sidemen less?

If something were to happen with Bruce, then he would need one of them.

Yeah but only one of them would be able to deliver a Beach Boys album ...

(yes I know the legalities and the why's and why not's ... I'm mean only one of them would be capable of doing it)

Does the license allow more than one group to use the Beach Boys name, or does Mike hold it exclusively?

He holds it exclusively I believe.

We may soon find out more if things are indeed heating up.

Brilliant!

I agree. I find it hard to understand Al sometimes but the way it is being taken on the board would mean they are vexed by themselves, they set the terms they are expected to abide by.

I guess it is on too riffing on making too much [imo] of "in a room". Fun, fun, fun.

I thought I'd throw this in. The Bolts posted this on their facebook site:

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/970538_10151386683492185_1792300181_n.jpg)

Well, a little birdie told me there is something afoot,  without giving specifics.

The strange irony is that Brian's band as it is now is more and more like Mike's traveling oldies show.  It features  mediocre talents such as Jeff Foskett on lead vocals. It has Dave Marks on lead vocals, who is an okay/adequate guitarist (JF is better, IMO), but not much of a singer. Darian is okay, but nothing special. They're altogether not much better as lead singers than Totten, Cowsill, and Christian Love. Brian sings less and less. When Brian does sing, he doesn't always sound very good at all. Mike Love is sounding somewhat better than Brian these days, but he has bad days, too. Al sings pretty well, but he gets only three or so songs. Then add in the fact that there are an awful lot of additional lead singers for a show that supposedly is a Brian Wilson solo show (doesn't that imply he should be singing nearly all of it, as he did when he first toured, but no longer does?).

Brian's band is better musically due to having more pieces and having some great musicians, but in terms of a show, it's getting closer to a Beach Boys revue/tribute band than a true Brian Wilson tour.  I'd say Mike's band is more of a Beach Boys revue/tribute band than a real Beach Boys, as well.

Eh. Let me know when Mike opens a set with Our Prayer, or can manage to pull off Heroes and Villains.

Or can do Marcella justice.

Or performs Pet Sounds numbers with the right instrumentation.

Or continues writing and performing new music. I guess we got the Cool Head, Warm Heart thing. Did he ever perform Santa's Going to Kokomo live?

Yes, he did. So that shows you!  ;)

To be fair, the earlier poster is right in that there isn't too much difference in the shows that the two factions put on.

The set lists are very similar nowadays. Mike's band also did a lovely acapella There Hearts Were Full of Spring a few years ago when I saw them.  I wish Brian's tour was more like the early tours.  I remember most people sitting open mouthed when they heard Prayer and Cabinessence et al back in 2002.  Or even I'd Love Just Once to See You and The Night Was So Young.  It was a very different experience than going to see Mike and Bruce.  However, I think Darian is more than ok.  He and the rest of Brian's band offer more vocally and instrumentally than Mike's.  Christian, for example, sounds ok but bored, as if he'd rather be someplace else.  Just my opinion of course.  I would prefer to see BAD, however I think they need to get back to making it 'magical' if that makes any sense?  Maybe it's just because Brian tours more these days.  I remember seeing Brian the first time and telling my ex-girlfriend it would be a once in a lifetime experience ( and missing a big concert she was doing on the same night).  The following week I flew to Dublin to see him!  For the last 11 years I have been going to his shows and each time there is something less to see or get excited about, apart from the fact it's Brian and the music is great.  Last year though at Wembley he was up for it!

It shows me that you can answer a question I asked, it wasn't some rhetorical point!

There's some overlap in the setlists what with all of the monster hits in the back catalog, but I'm not seeing them as equivalent shows without much difference. M&B's band is much thinner sounding on Pet Sounds numbers and don't do them justice. They don't even try the harder stuff, much less perform them accurately. If you want to claim there isn't too much difference between a band that can pull off Our Prayer/Heroes and Villains and make it seem easy and one that can't, enjoy! Obviously all those additional people Mike complains about must have SOME effect on the sound. Saying it's too expensive to tour county fairs and Biloxi casinos with Brian's band is one thing, trying to claim there's little difference between what they can do in their shows and the M&B experience is another! Or are you going to try to pull that "a synthesizer is just as good as a real French Horn" thing that seems popular these days?

 Ya get what you pay for. In this case... richer, lusher live versions of Brian's arrangements. I know those aren't as important as those timeless Mike Love lyrics, but I appreciate the extra effort BW's band goes through to make this material come alive. They ain't the Wrecking Crew, but man they are good!

That said, somebody clone Cowsill. There should be two of him.

You've got me mixed up with someone else. I've certainly never commented about the goodness of synthesizers.

Sorry but your comments are factually inaccurate. Mike's band have played Heroes and Villains on numerous occasions. The reason they don't play it more often is presumably due to the fact that Mike doesn't really like it.

They've shown they can sing a capella on Their Hearts were Full of Spring but Mike's group are unlikely to play deeper Smile material so why would they attempt Our Prayer?

When M&B's group have played deeper cuts (including stuff from Pet Sounds like You Still Believe in Me and Here Today) they have received universal praise haven't they?

I didn't say that the sound of the groups was identical. But there ain't that much difference in what people are seeing. Brian's band were playing 20-25 hits on the recent tour after all...

Wow, I mean, wow!

Right. With far more accurate renditions of the original arrangements, with more instruments and fuller harmonies. M&B can do stripped down versions and competent versions of the early stuff, but there's no way in hell they are remotely capable of pulling off Our Prayer/Heroes and Villains (mit der cantina!) even if Mike Love adored the song and desperately wanted to. Not without more musicians!

 If that stuff isn't important to you, there's very little difference I guess. If hearing the opening of Smile performed by people who care about it doesn't move you or make you think it's anything different than what Mike does, fine. There's veeeery little difference. Besides, the common man wants Stamos, not French Horns and fruity sh*t about cowboys!

I can understand the impulse to want to elevate Mike Love to Brian's equal musically to redress the terrible wrongs of history and received wisdom, but tying to pretend there isn't much difference in their touring bands is just total nonsense that insults a lot of talented musicians. You can big up M&B's players (like that kickass drummer!) for what they do without minimizing the BW band's strengths.

The point is, if Brian truly wants to get the Beach Boys name back, he has a point in that he has an somewhat similar situation to Mike in that there are a lot of people on stage who are singing Beach Boys songs who are not original Beach Boys. Also, Brian's show is becoming less and less of a Brian show. It's becoming more of a band show. Brian sang every lead when I saw him years ago. Now, he seems to be singing less and less, even though it's billed as "Brian Wilson." Since he's not called the Beach Boys, and he's not doing as much Brian Wilson-as-singer, then what is his act?  It is competitive with what Mike is doing, so that may be a factor in what both Mike and Brian are thinking if there is some kind of legal wrangling going on behind the scenes. Mike would argue that Brian is diluting the Beach Boys brand with a team of lead singers who aren't original Beach Boys masquerading as a Beach Boy type of act, and Brian could argue that Mike is doing the same, since Mike has a group of  people who aren't either him or Bruce doing a fair amount of lead singing.

His act is The Music of Brian Wilson.

With the man behind it sitting right there. Apparently that's a decent draw for his fans! I'm a big baby, hearing him sing God Only Knows on a good night makes me tear up and be glad to be alive and able to witness it. I guess maybe if he should try being more of a dynamic strutting frontman, like he's never been before. Would that make you happy?


I guess if he suddenly had some terrible brain injury he could try that, but Mike isn't on the apple juice any more.

It's actually an interesting point if you take a step back...

A while ago people were discussing this and there were several on the board who said that if it came to watching a greatest hits show that they would prefer to watch M&B rather than watch Brian's band. Partly because Brian can seem so disinterested when playing those songs and partly because Mike sang so many of them and his voice does sound much better than Brian's on those early hits. Musically there is a difference between the 2 groups but on the early hits it is nowhere near as pronounced as it would be on some other material.

Now Brian's band absolutely could play some songs that Mike's band couldn't or wouldn't play. In the recent setlists however they have largely chosen not to do that. As Mikeddonn commented a few posts earlier, the setlists are not as interesting or 'magical' as they once were.

I agree that Mike's group doesn't perform Our Prayer. But I don't think that 45 seconds of a live show suddenly means that they are as different as night and day.

You're dodging my point yet again. They can't do Our Prayer/Heroes and Villains (cantina version) the whole shebang, as it should sound. Not just 45 seconds of it, the whole thing. They have to strip down the arrangements because there are less musicians. This isn't a moral failing on Mike's part, it's just the reality of the number of people on stage capable of playing instruments.

I'm sure Bonhomme is a swell guy. But he can't play keyboard AND play vibes.


Great, I can point to all the other great reviews of the concerts on the board as well. The recent setlists have plenty of tracks M&B couldn't do half as competently, there's a lot of overlap because Brian Wilson is apparently described by some as this songwriting genius who wrote dozens of classics that people really, really wanna hear. Despite this, von Mertens sure managed to put together a tasty variation on the C50 shows for just a brief 8 date warmup and I can't wait to see what's next when they perform the new material.

Wake me when Mike writes new stuff.

I have to say, Old Man River/Cottonfields/Little Bird is plenty damn magical for me judging by the audience videos!

There's merit in both. Brian's tries to be more like the BBs' albums experience which he had a big hand in. Mike's tries to be more like the classic Beach Boys' concerts which he had a big hand in. Imo.

Definitely! Maybe they compliment each other, then.

So I don't get where this urge to pretend both experiences are about the same comes from. It's a different approach!

They'll have to answer but I took it as pointing out the similarities amongst the differences.

Because on a lot of those early hits I don't think there is a huge amount of difference. And they both do play a hell of a lot of the early hits.

And all of this took place when they were together for C50 too. So what's your point? They don't have a young Brian voice, nor do they have Carl Wilson's voice. They have to be replaced somehow. I know of no tribute bands with 2 or 3 or 5 members in them. Complain, complain, complain. I am totally convinced now, that no matter what they ever do, there will always be someone to find fault with it.

That's a very interesting point, and one that has a lot of merit. Brian's band members have always said that he reacts best and is most engaged when the band sounds most like the music he put down in the studio. And it's one of the reasons Foskett has had tensions with the rest of the band on occasion -- he learned the somewhat looser, smaller-band arrangements that Carl oversaw, and that's very much at odds with what Darian (who is perhaps the most important single guy in the band) and the more Wondermint-y types prefer.

As to any differences in setlists, it's really hard to compare in any systematic way, simply because Brian tours so little. His biggest tours have coincided with full-album performances (PS, Smile, TLOS and BWRG) -- something Mike has never attempted. When Brian played PS as a second set, his first sets had more rarities, simply because PS includes several must-play hits, thus freeing up space in the first. With Smile, the first set became somewhat surf-ier, given that Smile was so "out there" and included fewer outright hits. With the two most recent album-tours, the second-set material was all new, which meant the first sets pretty much had to include a few more hits to please a general audience.

This most current BAD tour wasn't quite a by-the-numbers as suggested -- including Old Man River, Little Bird, and Breakaway is a good move, and it's nice to see Goin' Home as well. No one does more justice to Brian's softer, more orchestral material than his own group.

But in the interests of fairness, Totten does lead an expert ensemble, and the difference between the touring groups has narrowed more than I expect most thought possible in the early 2000s. It ends up being whether you want to see a sprawling, orchestral pop show or a tight, exciting surf-rock one.

Excellent analysis both. What really tips the scale right now, for me, is the addition of "the voice",  Al Jardine, on lead and background vocals.

I assume Brian is doing what he thinks appeals to his narrower solo fanbase and Mike is doing what he thinks appeals to the wider BBs' fanbase. There is going to be a lot of overlap.

There are a few, and only a few, very vocal people on here who seem to be getting more delusional by the day!

How is making personal attacks against posters contributing a damn thing to this board, dude?  You aren't man enough to state your own opinions, so if you have nothing nice to say or constructive to offer of your own, don't post, and don't read. It ain't rocket science, genius.

This is rediculous!

If you're a rabid Brian fan and not really a Beach Boys fan, go see BAD and happily ignore Mike...

And why should Mike be playing SMILE stuff when he has a truckload of hits that he sang lead on? That's his ace in the hole. Why should he not take full advantage.... If you want SMILE SMILE SMILE, go see Brian. It really is simple.

Your comments on Brian's band did strike me as a little ... um ... well, peculiar. Let's put it that way. And isn't your reply above pretty much a bannable offense these days? I think the mods want to take a look.

I'm with you, if either band cannot make you happy, then don't see them. There are many people who are very happy to see either configuration or both.

How was KittyKat's opinion of Brian's band an attack? Isn't worse said of Mike and his band on a daily basis?

Unless I am reading the wrong post, she pretty much picks apart both backing bands.

When was this ever the argument? I took issue with the claim that there was "very little difference" between the two bands and cited a few differences, like the M&B band not being equipped to do justice to the complicated songs. I didn't say Mike should sing Wonderful. That would be hideous! Nice way to twist everything, tho. Rabid, not really a fan... cheap stuff not to address the point and make it personal instead.

It was a general statement and not directed at you personally.

I'm glad we all seem to agree on Cowsill. There really should be two of him and two of Nelson.

Yet it was only an attack when it came to Brian's band?

Ya know, with the amount of Mike bashing/trashing that goes on here, the bar has been set low enough that why should anyone be off limits?

Here's a question after Mike and Bruce playing the 500-700 seat show in Montreal last week.

Mike doesn't seem to mind playing gigs large or small. They get very good reviews and all reports are they do a great show as they have done for about 15 years. They also seem to do a lot of return gigs, meaning they return to the same venue each year. They have built up a good reputation and every story advertising the show mentions the line-up consisting of Mike and Bruce and not including Brian, Al and Dave.

After all the above, and keeping in mind this is not 1998, could Mike and Bruce still do ok in those smaller venues he favours as 'Mike Love and Bruce Johnston show' or the like, should they loose the name?

My most recent post had nothing to do with KittyKat's mention of Brian's band, however one wants to characterize it. It had to do with the way KK was treating another member of the board. That's the point I was raising.

Cam you got my comments spot on.  I was trying to highlight the similarities in both set lists.  In the past there was a big difference between the two tours.  Nowadays, there is less difference (set list wise). In my opinion Mike and Bruce's set lists have improved.  They have upped their game.  Brian's are 'safer' than they used to be.  It seems that they are both now going after some common ground (more casual fans in Brian's case and more hard core in Mike's).   It's also been said on here that Brian is less motivated by this approach and his interest wanes as he prefers more challenging stuff like performing whole albums.

Just to be clear, I think Brian's guys are the next best thing to actually jumping in a time machine and going back to the studio and hearing the Wrecking Crew.  They really make a magical sound and faithfully recreate the songs with passion and a clear love for the music.  Nobody else can do it like them.  That's why I don't particularly want them chasing some of the same audience as Mike and Bruce. The two factions do compliment each other and when they came together like last year it was special, as it was the best of both worlds (early hits, sung by Mike and deep cuts like Summer's Gone by Brian).  As that's not going to happen again soon, I would love to hear more of the diversity between the 2 set lists, particularly Brian doing his new songs, and maybe stuff like Melt Away and Rio Grande as well as some of the "Love You" material.  Oh, one other thing. Both bands should come back and do some shows in the UK ASAP!

Interesting article:

http://www.nola.com/music/index.ssf/2012/10/from_the_beach_boys_to_foreign.html

Thanks, I finally got one right.  ;D

Did some research.  Mike's license is non-exclusive.

definitely am looking over the last few pages right now.

This is an interesting article that sums up my own feelings about what we've got. We all know there's a lot to be said about the music being the star. People will go to see an Elvis impersonator, knowing full well that it ain't the real thing. And yet, they jam to the music and old ladies swoon, just as if they were seeing the King himself. Tribute bands do pretty well for themselves. No doubt, there is something to be said for the entertainment value that can be provided by a good band playing classic hits.

BUT... if you're billing yourself as the real deal, you should be the real deal. As completely as possible.

Prior to C50, I was willing to accept the Mike and Bruce show as The Beach Boys. Of course, Dennis and Carl were gone and Brian and Al were no longer a part of the touring band, somewhat by choice. So, Mike's show was the closest thing we were likely to get to an actual Beach Boys concert. I went to several of his shows and enjoyed them, because I love this music.

However, C50 was a revelation and a game changer. It was then I saw what this band actually could be, and that set the bar pretty high for me. The real Beach Boys in 2013 are Brian, Mike, Al, David and Bruce.

Post C50, if Brian, Al and David had chosen to go back to their solo projects, I would have continued to view the Mike and Bruce tour as the closest thing to the actual band available. However, since Brian and Al indicated a desire to go on, having a "Beach Boys" band that only includes one out of the four available original members seems like a cheat. The real Beach Boys should be as real as possible. By walking away from any further discussions and continuing his two man tour, Mike substituted his convenience for authenticity. That's fine. If he wants to work that way, it's his choice. But, from now on, if I'm paying to see the real Beach Boys, I expect a few more original members on that stage.

Well, firstly I think a lot of the venues Mike and Bruce play are much bigger. Some of the county fairs are 10,000 plus I think. But I think they do need the name as it is The Beach Boys brand that sells.

There are some singers who compromise and come up with billings like:

Voice of

The Beach Boys

Mike Love

How well he could do with that sort of billing is more debatable.

From Al's comments it seems Brian, Al and David might want to do something similar but if they are legally allowed to it would beg the question as to why Al didn't tour in this way for so long. Also, for the hardcore fans it may not be such a good thing as it would probably guarantee that the setlist would remain hit-heavy to please a more Beach Boys audience.

Mike seems to be a concert junkie. Sure, he does the bigger gigs but I think he would be just as enthusiastic with the smaller shows. Doesn't he have to pay BRI 20% of his proceeds? That's a lot of shows that in effect he is doing for free so going alone could have its advantages too.

Wait, what? What does that mean?

That means Brian and Al could get a license from BRI, paying a $% to be negotiated, and call themselves "The Beach Boys Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks". That is my understanding after reading all about the Al Jardine and Beach Boys Family & Friends lawsuit fiasco. Al was offered a license from BRI but didn't feel he should have to pay for it.

On the other hand, case law seems to indicate Brian, Al and David could bill themselves as original members as long as they were not inferring that they were "The Beach Boys" or an officially sanctioned Beach Boys unit. Such as:

Appearing, live and in concert on September 11, 2013

Original Beach Boys members
Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks

I am guessing this is what Mike is balking about.

Brian wants the 'Beach Boys' name back? Hell, yeah! He wants Mike and Bruce back, too.  BB50 could have continued this year. Maybe too much 'bad blood' at this point. Share the name?

Looks like another chapter in Beach Boy history is about to be written.  :ahh :huh :3d :p

It's really that the BRI, Brother Records Incorporated, own this copyrighted brand name called "The Beach Boys", which they license. So they could license Brian, Al and David as "The Beach Boys present original members Brian........". They licensed Mike to tour as "The Beach Boys" as  he was first to request it.

Related reading:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html

And

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/bandnames.html

You may well be entirely correct but it has certainly been written in the past hat Mike's license is exclusive.

Funny how people repeat hearsay as fact. Read the Calif. Court ruling. It is clearly stated the license in not exclusive.
Some may think exclusive means Mike is the only one who can tour as the Beach Boys. But legally, that is not wholly true. Other BB licenses can be issued. It's all there for you to read.

As I said, you may be entirely correct.

I'm not sure why Al hasn't have tried to call himself a Beach Boy when playing concerts if that is the case though.

Probably because he got his ass kicked in his expensive stupid law suit. He didn't wanna pay for a license. He knows Mike likes to sue and didn't wanna go there again.

Now, I guess he has Brian on his side.......

There were non-exclusive licenses in the period covered by the court document but has Mike had an exclusive license since? If they were non-exclusive now it seems Brian and Al would just take it up as long as they met the conditions of the license presumably if they were wanting what is being speculated from Al's comments.

Not at all. There is no indication things have changed.  If you read the legal analysis, there is no license required to bill themselves as original members of ttheBeach Boy, which is what Al said they wanted to promote themselves as.

So Brian's mgt sends BRI aa letter to that effect and Mike's lawyer objects. There you have Al's situation of Obstruction, as he puts it. Al talks about making sure the fans know who they are.

How about

Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks Not Appearing as the Beach Boys

or
Do "tribute bands" require licensure from the owners of the name?

Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks Perform a Tribute to the Beach Boys

I know, that tribute band idea is SACRELIGE but it could work.

"Read the Calif. Court ruling. It is clearly stated the license in not exclusive.
Some may think exclusive means Mike is the only one who can tour as the Beach Boys. But legally, that is not wholly true. Other BB licenses can be issued."  But have any additional licenses been issued?  I'm willing to bet the answer is no, and that the corporation would need to vote on it for it to happen.

Excellent! Maybe Brian or Al's people will see your post.

A recent example of BRI licensing the BB brand name:

http://www.hansensclothing.com/display.asp?id=10115

http://blog.pendleton-usa.com/2012/10/03/before-they-were-the-beach-boys-they-were-the-pendletones/

I think we may be talking about two different things, or I maybe I don't get it. If you don't need a license for a fair use of the trademark then the license doesn't matter. I think Mike has an exclusive license but BAD may be able to use the name in ways without the license. I think that is what the court said, Al used the name in improper ways and also operated as if and claimed he had a license but it had not been approved or signed off on by BRI but presumably Al could use the name in proper ways without the license.  Or not.

Well, BRI has only licensed one "Beach Boys". If you want to look at it that way, it's exclusive. Legally, it's not. BRI could license Brian as "Brian Wilson's Beach Boys featuring ......" Every license is exclusive to it's own binding terms and conditions with certain stipulations. If you read the court docs, Mike's license has stipulations and a fee. As long as he abides by the terms of his license, he is good, (except BRI could vote to revoke it. Which I just don't see at this point).

Also, the terms of his license prohibit him from releasing songs and other works as the Beach Boys.

Mike would already have released a half dozen concert DVDs of his band if he legally could. Same with all the BB band recordings he did with Adrian Baker. His license terms don't allow releasing it as BB music.

Cam, I think that there was a provision about using "preferred promoters." And "confusion in the marketplace" is another issue if there are two bands using "Beach Boys" in the performing marketplace.

On the old Larry King interview with Brian and Melinda, they talked about "the BRI license" which sounds like one license. And, they said it went to Mike because he was "family." I wonder if it is on YouTube.  If I had to guess, it was probably around 2004 during the SMiLE promotion.  (I'm guessing.)

And, I'm thinking that Mike appears to have been acting in conformity with the "rules of the road" so that he looks on pretty firm ground, notwithstanding that other people have changed their positions.  And, now it seems that C50 was not a BRI production, even if the clothing and goods connected to the C50 tour bear the mark, they might have been exclusive to the tour as a condition.  And, it could have favored BRI for the sales of products, and the C50 entity for the tour.

It would be surprising if things changed. 

I may not be following you but I still believe Mike currently has an exclusive license since the judgment which I believe excludes other licenses by BRI. Which BRI could change in the future as they have in the past.

That is all part of the Jardine Family and Friends lawsuit/appeal.  BRI offered Al a license BECAUSE there would have been confusion, and loss of income without one. BRI  would have suffered a loss of income with Al using the Beach Boys name without paying a fee. As a matter of fact, that was one argument against Al in the appeal. Without Al paying a fee, there was/would be a loss of revenue.  BRI is a corporation and licenses a brand. They, the corp, doesn't care about competition to Mike's band so much as they care about maintaining, or increasing revenue.

Unless someone has some other documentation saying otherwise, there is nothing stopping Brian or Al from taking out a license to perform as some form of the Beach Boys, just not "The Beach Boys" as Mike already has that. Now if they offer BRI more $ than Mike is paying, they might vote to switch.  But that is presently quite unlikely (unless Brian tarts charging $1000 per ticket).

Why do you believe that Cam?  It's all in black and white, legal in writing public record yada yada. Did you read the ruling?  It plainly states Mike's license is NON-EXCLUSIVE! And the last court action was 2003.  Check out the link and read it a few times.  Took me awhile to digest.

Just because some articles/interviews wrongly state Mike owns the legal rights to the name (which he doesn't) ?

I know what it says about 2003 but somewhere I thought it was said later they changed the non-exclusive licenses back to an exclusive license for Mike. I don't remember were I got it, maybe that King interview with Brian mentioned, so maybe I'm wrong.

I see what ORR is saying...that Mike has "The Beach Boys" name exclusively, but that Brian and Al could bill themselves as Brian Wilson and Al Jardine of The Beach Boys, or whatever, but they would have to pay a fee and Mike would get a part of the money just like Brian and Al do from Mike's shows. That seems like what the deal is, and that seems reasonable.

Exactly. Or they could conceivably outbid Mike for the license (that ain't happening).

But it seems they could bill themselves as original BBs as long as it didn't infer they ARE the BBs. Which is apparently what Al was referring to in the article. It's a squabhle about semantics.

The original conflict arose out of the promoter, not being on "the list" and, the distribution formula amount of income.  And a dispute as to the necessity of permission to tour under other non-conforming conditions which were expressly set forth.  There was confusion as to whom would be the actual performers.  BRI got a permanent injunction. It was affirmed on appeal.

One point I'd analogize easily. If you go on eBay and in the search box, you put in "beach boys," you'll get the "primary" as well as the "secondary" sense.  You'll get a bunch if items like generic photographs of boys who "frequent a stretch of sand beside the sea." [footnote 3 of the case on findlaw] Then you'll get the "secondary" meaning being "descriptive, suggestive,   trademarked sense, of "music band-and it's members that popularized California surfing culture." And, the court said that meant even if he meant himself (Jardine) or the band.  Classic fair use did not apply [footnote 4] Classic Fair Use is only appropriate when the defendant has used "his own product" and not at all to describe the "plaintiff's product."

After you do this eBay search, you'll see our Beach Boys stuff, whether it is old BB concert tickets, LP's, new tickets mixed in with the generic boys on a stretch of sand.  And the court said that (referencing the NKOTB case) that "the nominative fair use defense acknowledges that 'it is often virtually impossible to refer to a particular product for purposes of comparison, criticism, point of reference or any other purpose without using the mark."

"Still the 'core element' is 'whether an alleged trademark infringer's use of a mark creates a likelihood that the consuming public will be confused as to who makes what product." And in the New Kids case cited, the nominative (name) fair use defense is only available if "the use of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet of one product for a different one."

 Back to the generic eBay search; you can see where the search engine for eBay doesn't really know what you want; the "anonymous boys on any beach" or the ones from California who sing in a particular style, promoting girls/cars/surf/ - THE Beach Boys who belong to a "particular class" of individuals, and who have distinct characteristics.

There's a sort of payment for the use.  Mike assented to the terms, apparently as a "cost of doing business" as the Touring Band.  Al didn't go along with that "formula." It appears he made a rejection of terms and counteroffer, that was not accepted.  It is interesting, that there were things going on with BRI in the "Background" section of the case, with different terms emerging in 1991, 1993, and percentages relating to members who actually toured.  But, Mike was actually "licensing" from his own parent group, BRI.  And the dispute arose as to "whether BRI and Jardine entered into a non-exclusive license agreement." And if you read the background, you'll see the different terms. Paragraph 5 under Background of the case.

Many thanks to Oregon River Rider for posting the link and the Ivan Hoffman link to explain some of what it means.  ;)

I think I see what you guys are saying but I think that reflects the status around 2000, even before this opinion was written, I think it has changed since then as to the licenses. I assume they still have the right to use the trademark without the license in certain ways. I could be wrong and I guess we may find out.

You keep saying this Cam but you have nothing to back it up other than being a huge Mike fan. The case dates to 2003 so no, things didn't change in 2000. You shouldn't claim things you can't back up. We have the case from the US Court of Appeals which is set in stone as far as we know. All indications are that BRI is operating in the same fashion. The C50 is a great example. BRI issued a new license for that purpose.

Can we agree that no one here knows? If we don't have the text of the license in front of us, we have no idea how it might works, or when it might have been revised. I was certainly under the impression that the non-exclusive license business ended after the legal mess with Al, and that there is a single license granted to Mike. But what that means, and how it plays out in reality, I've no idea. AGD would know, but I'm not sure if he's back among us yet.

I don't believe AGD knows as he has never indicated he has knowledge of the license wording. What we do know, for sure, is that the Court ruling states the license is non-exclusive. Which makes sense as a new license was issued for the C50. As proof we now have Mike bitching about how things were not done to his liking. If Mike has an exclusive license, he would have called all the shots on the C50.

You can tell a lot about the structure of BRI and rules, from the case decision, as it sets forth some of the essential terms and conditions.  My inference of Mike's issues center around the "writing collaboration" with Brian and that might have been "an unfilled condition" of C50.  And, Mike would have "relied on that condition (writing with Brian)  to his detriment."

From what I have read it was Wilson-Love-Thomas.  Someone will surely correct me if I'm incorrect.  And, they, BRI, would have every right if business or income would be hurt or diminished if the current arrangement were to change.  That is a reason for a corporation.  In business, for profit.  It isn't political or arty.   

Only NEW issues could be litigated.  That case was affirmed at the higher level.  (Based on that linked case.)

Wasn't there a promoter towards the end of C50 that advertised the Touring Band as the C50 lineup?  Wasn't it cancelled? It caused "confusion in the marketplace" because the majority of people really don't know the difference.  Only the "higher end" fans!   :lol

Sorry, I couldn't resist!  ;)

OK. I guess we'll find out sometime maybe.

I don't think that part is true. At all.

If Mike had attempted to call the shots either in terms of recording the album or the make up of the touring group then Brian wouldn't have been involved and it would never have happened.

Yeah, that was what I was saying. The 'operation' ran on new terms, new license.

Not on youtube but here is part of the transcript.

KING: How long were you a group?

 B. WILSON: From 1961 to 1998. Then we broke up after Carl died. Which is too bad.

 KING: And Mike, he has the group now, is that it...

 B. WILSON: He licenses the name, yes.

 M. WILSON: We licensed the name to Mike because he is actually the only one that really -- well, I shouldn't say the only one, Al would like to too, but we decided Mike would be the guy who...

 KING: So he takes the group out called the Beach Boys.

 M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...

 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

 M. WILSON: Yes. And the other ones I really don't know who...

 KING: But they go out and they have the license to use the name.

 M. WILSON: They have the license to use the name.

 KING: And you get a cut of what they do?

 M. WILSON: Yes.

 KING: So you get a percentage.

 M. WILSON: Mmm-hmm.

"Some Bruce." Classic.

Tells us absolutely nothing we don't already know. Bummer. Sounds like it was even pre-Al lawsuit.

Anyway, I've read the tea leaves as far as I can tell. Will await Al's next interview with interest.

"Some Bruce?"

Did she really not know who Bruce was?

No, it does help.  I think that transcript followed the lawsuit.  Thanks for posting it. It was argued and submitted - Nov. 6, 2002 --Jan. 28, 2003.  SMiLE came out in 2004.  It was settled. The Court cited a case called Thane Intl., 305 F.3d at 900, "the nominative fair use defense shifts to the defendant the burden of proving no likelihood of confusion." The fair use analysis was not available to Al because there "was a likelihood of customer confusion as to the origin of the product."  The court also said that "actual confusion is undisputed." Under Thane, "if enough people have actually been confused," that element of marketplace confusion is established.

A Playboy case was cited, Playboy, 279 F.3d at 802, where the defendant had identified herself as "Playmate of the Year."
That means Playboy Playmate. It is not generic. It is "brand" related.  They are classified as:
 G-eneric
 A-rtisic (fanciful)
 D-escriptive
 S-uggestive

A nmemonic to remember them!  ;)

They also looked at "secondary meaning" in the minds of consumers.  That means that the "descriptive" term has become distinctive as well. 

CNN's transcript says the Larry King LIVE interview "Aired August 20, 2004".

She would be in the same category as most people on the planet. ;D

Confirming a recent question, *yes* there were several "Beach Boys" live shows being promoted after the 50th tour had wrapped, and those shows were strictly the Mike-led band with Bruce, yet the online advertising was mentioning the reunion. This, I'd think, would be in conflict with several agreements least of which would be what the promoters and the audiences would be paying for when they paid for the "Beach Boys", and listed the reunion band.

I posted at least two of these cases on this board as they happened, of course the links will be dead by now but I can say for certain there was what I felt was some misunderstanding, confusion, and/or basic ignorance - for whatever reasons - of what was being advertised versus who would be appearing on stage. And if I recall there were changes made to those advertisements and listings, but we'll never know how many folks not connected to the BB's fan universe saw the ads and bought tickets thinking it was a reunion show.

Consider this: Reading through the previous pages, one of the key elements in the legal aspects of using this or any brand name is avoiding confusion among those customers paying for that brand item and expecting to get a specific result.

The fact that even one venue, promoter, or marketer advertised a post-reunion show incorrectly would suggest there were some flaws in the existing agreement from that time, post-reunion.

And let me add too that there does thankfully seem to be something legal in the books which would control who or what can release any new music under the name "The Beach Boys".

If this were *not* in place, I'd suggest the reputation and legacy behind that name would not only stand to be tarnished but also possibly dragged through the mud and destroyed completely.

I think it was confirmed by everybody who watched this at the time that Melinda did NOT make the 'some Bruce' comment.

If I had to guess, it is likely "scrivenor's error" on the part of the transcriptionist.  She may have very quickly said "someone named" Bruce (Johnston) - in order to "identify members" of the Touring Band arrangement.

And, I would probably remember a comment like that.  Think it is a boo-boo!  ;)

I have this episode on VHS and I seem to recall her saying Bruce and not "some Bruce". Things I do recall are Melinda cutting off Brian when he tried to state that Landy had written songs (Brian being honest and Melinda trying her hand at revisionism) and Larry asking if at one point they were called Glen Campbell and The Beach Boys!

When Al won his second appeal, he had a suit pending.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/music.beachboys.reut/

In 2008, a settlement was made between him and Mike. I imagine this set new guidelines for the license. Wonder if the terms of this settlement ever came out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/lawsuit-settled-over-beac_n_92706.html

I wonder how Al felt about his son Matt appearing with Mike and Bruce a few months ago.

I also wonder who has the tie-breaking vote in BRI, since it's four parties. Carl's family must have given Mike permission to use his image in the BB show. So, if that's a sign that Carl's family is on Mike's side if there is a dispute, and if Brian decided to team with Al on any issues, who would break the tie?

How do we know that the "conflict" in the organization isn't Al v. Brian and Mike and Carl's estate? Has anyone heard Brian even wants to use the trademark on his solo tours? It seems to me that Al [and some fans] is only one playing up Brian's solo concerts as a defacto or continuation BB reunion. Is there any indication or evidence that BDub isn't perfectly happy with "Brian Wilson featuring Al Jardine and David Marks"?

I presume there would be no action and things would stay the same until they expired or some consensus jelled.

There is no such thing as a 'tie breaker" in this BRI voting dilemma

Somebody would have to decide if there is ever a disagreement of two parties vs. two parties.  Unless one of the four parties has a larger percentage than the other three, of course. 

Do you have any interest in the groups music? Or do you just like the soap opera sh*t? Cuz I noticed you don't really post in the threads about the new, previously unreleased music that's coming out on Made In California or when Brian announced his new album or any of that stuff. Seems you care more about making sure Mike doesn't get blamed for SMiLE getting shelved or for ending C50 or for cheating on his wife on tour.

Does ANYONE really care whether Mike is cheating on his wife on tour?  The ohers, yeah, I can see the imprtance

I remember in an interview Brian said he wouldn't even recognize Bruce if he saw him in public.

Cam ain't the only one on these type threads.  I see your name pop up constantly on them, so don't blame him or anybody else for their interest in the soap opera sh*t because you're always right in the middle of it!!

i agree with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with that. But I also actually post in the threads about the group's music. Unlike other posters who apparently don't have anything to contribute except when it comes to Mike being unfairly blamed for stuff in their opinion. Kinda like how Phil Cohen only popped up to complain about non-releases. Cam only pops up when it's about internecine squabbles. Weird.

Do I have to choose? Is there a quota I'm not aware of? 

So have you heard Brian express any desire to use the trademark for his solo with guests tours?

Edit: Is your problem with me over this story that no one can tell but gets told by PM and obliquely alluded to often and seems to be just hearsay but supposedly according to someone I condone adultery? I don't condone adultery. I've been married to the same woman for 39 years. Are we better yet?

I've mentioned it before but it does seem bizarre that you are obsessed with Cam's posts. Most of your posts seem to be responses to his or references to him.

If you've been around this board and those that came before it as long as I have, you'll know that Cam has his opinions, and I must say he certainly stands firm in his beliefs.  I tried to counter his position several years ago for a short time, but it is useless.  There were some very good discussions between him and Dan Lega years ago.  Any of you long-timers remember those exchanges?  Classic stuff.  Anyway, just as oldsurferdude is oldsurferdude, Cam is Cam and that is that. 

Okay, you all may resume your bickering now.

There are some posters on this board who only come out to play when there's a thread on the subject of SMiLE. When there's a new fragment that's discovered or some other new revelation (i.e. Durrie acetates) or other issue, they come out of the woodwork. After the Smile Sessions came out, there was a lot of discussion about that subject from a lot of fans and particularly Smile-O-Philes, then after that, they went home! Didn't even see some of them come back to discuss the C50. It's like that's all there is to talk about with the Beach Boys legacy. Sure it was the pinnacle of their career, but there's been 50 years worth of music and other stuff to discuss, not just SMiLE! But everybody has their primary interests, I guess.

My primary interest is the music, irrespective of who may be performing it.

My secondary interest is trying as best I can to see this amazing music has a valid and accurate context.

My tertiary interest is weeding out trolls, liars, fantasists and the terminally blinkered. Gettin' there...

Cue little girl from Poltergeist

"He's ba-a-ck"

 :lol :lol :lol

( :o)

Andrew who?

'My solution' would be to allow Mike & Bruce to continue as The Beach Boys and for the BAD guys to continue as Animal Collective: The Prequel.

bah bah BAHHHHM !

Welcome back, stranger.

I think Mike and Bruce should have the vowels, and Brian, Al and Dave have the consonants.

e ea os

Th Bch By

I must admit I thought this board was doomed without AGD.

WELCOME BACK !!!

Welcome back ol' pal.

Great to se you back mate!

Amen and good to see you back.

Welcome back, Andrew! And none to soon, either. :)

For each interest;  :beer :beer :beer

Welcome Back !

Welcome back Andrew.  Have you had a listen to MIC?

Tertiary-a 2.00 word for third as in third point but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, we have to use the 2.00 word to, COUGH (as he coined it), impress the masses. What a fine , upstanding police force we have in the agdster! :police: RTP(real troll protection).

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!                 HEs BACK.........................................

yup, my reaction exac.

Welcome back, AGD!

"My Solution"      
I awoke one morning about 3 am remembering a missing link to a formula I stumbled across a year before.
Suddenly I called my faithful dog to my side and from a batch produced a sample of the formula offering it to my dear pet.  ;D

As Carl sang it so many years ago, Andrew...

It's about time!! :king

Bored with it.  ;)

Thanks for the kind words of welcome: much appreciated. I see little has changed during my hiatus.

Also, having read the original post in this thread, reminds me of Alan's recent "explosive" interview in that once you read what was actually said, a huge damp squib. No-one's going to change the status quo at BRI unless they're seriously naive (and I'm pretty sure it would be very difficult in any event). As Sting put it, "money for nothing". The only band that could - and should - be allowed to promote itself as The Original Beach Boys toured last year... and the use of the word "original" grates in this context.

Have the band *ever* tried to actually bill themselves *collectively* as “The Original Beach Boys?” Not that I can remember. The C50 band didn’t even use this verbiage, Mike and Bruce don’t try to use it, nor did anybody in the “BAD” situation including Al ever say they wanted to collectively bill any grouping as “THE Original Beach Boys.”

It seems this is all simply about descriptors for individual members. Like if freaking David Marks toured with Ringo’s “All-Starr” Band or something, could he say he is/was an “Original Beach Boy?” The answer to me seems to be usually these guys can indeed bill themselves as such, unless that verbiage starts creeping into any band’s actual name.

Referencing it back to Al’s situation of the previous decade, it’s my belief that the lawsuits were over the “BBFF” name, but due to the various lawsuits and temporary injunctions and whatnot, and supposed/alleged “confusion” being created, there was a period of time in the early-mid 2000’s where Al was temporarily barred from even billing himself as a “Beach Boy” even in a descriptive sense. By the time I saw Al in a solo concert in 2005, Al had regained the ability to state that he, singly was a “Beach Boy” as evidenced by the comical way he signed one of the several items for me as “Beach Boy Al Jardine.”  :lol

The Beach Boys’ situation gets even more sketchy and confusing, because the “corporate” band is different from the “touring” band, so some members who have “left” or are no longer in the touring band are in one sense “former Beach Boys”, but also maintained a status as simply “Beach Boy” depending on how you define such. Brian and Al have never really been “former Beach Boys”, but because of how ALL of these guys have chosen to have a “license” to use the name that doesn’t match the actual members, you get weird conundrums like this.  

Yeah, it's almost as if somebody posted that faux tabloid headline phrasing as a joke and then said so several times in the thread or something!

"He can't keep a lid on his Jar(dine): Fireworks fly as former Beach Boy Al Jardine shakes the very core the entertainment industry, and indeed the universe, with explosive new information, leaving nothing but piles of desecrated rubble in the aftermath of his atom bomb. Details on page 2."

Film at eleven ?

Hey, you stole my material!

At C50 Foskett annouced them individually as "Welcome original Beach Boy David Marks..." and so on. I think they are not trying to bill themselves as "The Original Beach Boys" as opposed to the fake ones, rather that each one of the three actually IS an original Beach Boy.

I think I'm going to form a group called "The Fake Beach Boys". I'll play bass. All I need is a short guitarist, a chubby one, a balding singer and a sexy drummer. Any volunteers? ;D

I wouldn't fit any of those roles, but perhaps I could rig up another fake mixing board for the domineering father character to play with in the studio.   ;D

I'm not short, chubby, balding or sexy (according to some ladies anyway) but I wanna be in the band. Tell you what, I'll be The Lost Fake Beach Boy.

Anyone remember the mid-80's "New Coke" controversy? By the time Coca-Cola tried to repair all the damage they had caused their brand identity by changing the product, they created a situation where "Coca Cola" became "New Coke", but consumers could also buy "Classic Coke", which somehow never tasted the same as the old original Coca Cola in the green bottles. So if you wanted to buy a Coke, would you buy New Coke or Classic Coke? Then New Coke disappeared, as did Classic Coke, and you could buy Coca Cola again. But could you really feel confident that what you were buying was the real Coca Cola?

Confused?  :-D

The closest thing to buying the old/original/classic Coke now can be found as its being bottled in Mexico, made with pure cane sugar or something and sold for over a dollar per bottle in certain grocery stores.

So maybe the solution to all this Beach Boys confusion might somehow be found in Mexico, who knows.  ;D

Do you know why there's 4-colored hazardous materials signs on the side of the tanker trucks used to carry the raw material (acidic acid) of Coke to the manufacturing plant? Because it's so caustic that it will eat asphalt. It's also used to clean the rust and corrosion off of chrome bumpers. Imagine what it does to your teeth!

But I still love it!

The only time I ever drink Coke is on Christmas Eve... and yes, it's the Mexican glass bottled variety. Otherwise, no thanks.

(http://www.corbisimages.com/images/DZ002248.jpg?size=67&uid={C042A9B7-41D7-49C2-A90F-ABE0D98B7A09})

On a related note I think some of Mike's stage wear from the 70's was radioactive.  ;D

I am a 6'3, 230 llb red head with a receding hair line. I usually sport a beard as well. I sing well, but don't play instruments. I am sure I could manage a tamborine or slide theremin. Only problem is, my voice is more like a young Dennis then Mike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/New_Coke_can.jpg/150px-New_Coke_can.jpg)

I can clap my hands incessantly and adjust my mic stand constantly do I qualify?  ;D

Things go better with coke.

It didn't for Brian Wilson though.

Hey! I wanna be in the band. I'm a pretty good singer, and I think I wear sequins at least as well as Mike does. If we're the Fake Beach Boys, would it matter if one of the Boys is actually a girl?

Did Mike not have a problem with Coke (sponsoring the Monterrey Pop Festival)?  Or maybe Pepsi.  Now what is the link between Coke and this thread?  Well it is after all called the "Real Thing" a bit like the real Beach Boys!  :).

I can offer you a balding drummer.  ;D



And while I realize I'm a little late:  WELCOME BACK, ANDREW!!!!   :rock

In the green glass bottle! Yeah, baby! The pause that refreshes!

But, there is a special Kosher batch with real sugar for Passover, no high fructose corn syrup!

Not from Mexico.

Delish!  ;)

If those trousers were any higher they'd be cutting off Mike's air supply.


Have you tried putting a peg on your nose?

What goiod is a pug on his nose going to be? more likely the dog will bite him

https://www.facebook.com/rob.hendrick.79

I guess in some photos I look like Mike.

Oh I'm so sorry. We never knew! :lol

Why, I'd never have thought my remark would cause so much response! :)


All right, you're Fake Dave. :)

While I'm not of Brian's caliber of course, my falsetto deos sound better when I sing it out of the side of my mouth, so I'm Fake Brian. Foskett should try that too. :-D



Well, do you wear shorts? If not, out you go! ;D



Welcome Fake Marilyn! (Don't forget to bring your sister! ;D)


And... welcome back Fake Murry! ;D

USA Coca Cola uses high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which means that Coke tastes different. I don't like the 'sweet' flavour of HFCS, and it leaves a slightly unpleasant aftertaste. High fructose corn syrup can also lead to health problems.

Coca Cola in Mexico and elsewhere, such as the UK, just use sugar, good ol' glucose, for the sweetener.

So we have a situation where one of the most American symbols of all time (in terms of leisure/pleasure, choice, commerce, capitalism, global branding) is actually inferior in its homeland because HFCS is cheaper.

Do you remember when you were young and 'processed added sugar' was the bad guy? Well, now it's the lesser of two evils compared to HFCS.

So ....how goes the bad vs mike conflict over use of the brand name....and I'm not talking about soda pop.

does bad get to mention they are beachboys?

Cool! I'm in the fake Honeys! Which, I guess, would actually just be The Syrups. Like the stuff that's in Loaf's fake Coke. Where's Fake Mike? I want to raid his wardrobe.

Do we have a fake Al yet? I'm 5'10", may actually be a little too tall. My singing voice leaves a lot to be desired. However, strumming 3 chords on an inaudible guitar is one of my specialties. If I'm not Al-ish enough, I could always be fake Zeppo!

I'm 5'7"

Ha....I'm 5 foot 2.


Is that too tall for Al?