The Smiley Smile Message Board

According to Bruce the reason Al, Brian and Dave are not shown in any pictures on the video screen during mike and bruce shows is that

"Mike and I were were asked not to include photos of them during our video 'scrapbook' video presentation?"

So sad to me....

Bruce Johnston
Montecito
December 12, 2013

It is pretty sad when you think about it

No Wilsons, no BBs.

If I remember correctly, this has been discussed at length, about six to eight months ago.

It appears that it was not at the initiative of the Touring Band. 

This is hardly news.  I'd bet that a search would yield those discussion threads. 

This was indeed mentioned some months back. The ironic part is that there seems to be only sporadic interest in the Mike & Bruce tour here (compared to something like last year’s tour anyway), so we only randomly even heard that they had integrated the video screen into their shows earlier this year.

It’s easy to say that Al and Brian (and maybe Dave?) asking for their images to be removed is petty. But not only are there some potential legal/contractual issues at play (do the terms of the BRI license allow that particular use of images, also Brian and Al may co-own some of the material being used, etc.), I think given the mix-up with C50 photos being used on a few early Mike/Bruce shows, and the general uneasy way the reunion ended contributed to this decision. I can see Al and Brian’s point. Mike doesn’t want to actually perform with us, but he’ll pay tribute to us on the video screen?

If all the other BB’s were deceased, such a thing would make sense. But when some of them are still alive, well, and wanting to perform with the full band, it’s just insanely bizarre to have them up on the screen but not on stage.

I genuinely love how ironic our Beach Boys can be. Bruce doesn’t necessarily find not PERFORMING with Brian and Al to be sad (Bruce seemed to me to be happy about going back to touring without them; even before the reunion tour was over), but not having their images on the video screen is sad?

I still find it ironic that a year after a reunion tour, and with Brian, Al, and David all still alive and wanting to perform with the full band, you can’t see Brian, Al, or Dave with the “Beach Boys”, but you can in some cases apparently see and hear Carl and Dennis performing with the “Beach Boys” live.

Yes, I'd say that's the very definition of the word (irony.).

Thank You to Hey Jude for posting his thoughts.. :shrug  I need a drink to calm my C50 blues now.  :beer

Things must be so bitter in the Beach Boys camps right now

I'll never understand why the Wilsons and Al don't take Mike to court--or do whatever is necessary--to revoke his ability to use "The Beach Boys" as his band name. That's so damaging to the BB brand, and after the 50th Anniversary tour, this lame cover band gig should be up.

Wilsons? You mean just Brian, as the other Wilsons are bereft of life.
Sadly, Brian and the others can't do anything because Mike legally owns the Beach Boys name

Le sigh.

Mike doesn't own the name. Or, rather, he co-owns it with Brian and Al and Carl's estate (Dennis's estate sold off his shares earlier). The four of them vote on who gets to use the name on tour, and for now, Mike is the one who can do so (and he does pay Brian and Al and Carl's survivors for the privilege).

While there may be some legal wrangling on how Brian, Dave and Al want to bill themselves, it would still take three votes of the BRI to change who uses the Beach Boys name. And given that Mike is still touring, it sure doesn't look like three votes are there.

PSanta-by "the Wilson's" I meant Brian along with Carl's estate.

Also, if Carl's estate sided with Brian and Al, wouldn't it be game over? I'm shocked these three parties don't come together against Mike. But that has always been a problem with the Beach Boys: always focusing on minimal short-term financial gain instead of protecting their legacies (which over time actually produces more money anyway).

One big question that we still don't know the answer to is whether any attempt has been made or will be made to take the license away. I'd guess not so far, and it has less to do with the money generated by Mike for Brian and Al (it's a nice hunk of change for doing nothing but owning a trademark, but it's not nearly as much as what Mike makes actually doing the touring, and far less than what Al for instance would make being on an actual BB tour) and more to do with the likely apathy Brian and Al would have towards years of additional legal wrangling that would likely ensue. These guys are headed towards 75 years old, they may just not have it in them.

At the most, Brian's grouping of three BB's (four including Blondie) may have been a passive aggressive warning that Brian for the first time has an interest in doing more than solo touring. More likely, any intimations or potential political moves have been discussed at board meetings and whatnot. Mike doesn't seem to be too concerned about the possibility of losing the license.

Sorry about that.  :lol It's very true, it is a sad thing. It has nothing to do with allegiances towards certain members or any of that. C50 was the most impressive thing (not just tour; but any project of any sort) any version of The Beach Boys have done since the 70's. Whomever of us is still alive in another 50 years and writing the history of the group will look back, after all these guys are gone, at how sad it was they couldn't keep it going for another few years or something.

My sense is, despite the awkward ending to C50, it's not nearly as awkward as it was in, say, 2000 or so. Matt Jardine sat it with Mike's band earlier this year. Mike was comfortable releasing C50 product after his version of the band was back on the road. They are at least trying to stay relatively nice about each other in interviews.

Even ten years ago, Mike was bent out of shape about Brian doing "Smile", Bruce was poopy about Brian saying his band was better than the BB's, Al was gleefully telling stories about Dennis punching Mike out in the olden days, Mike was strenuously pretty much avoiding even saying Al's name in interviews, Brian wasn't saying much about the other guys.

It's not that bad now. C50, despite the gawdawful wrap-up, seemed to soften things at least a bit.

I think Mike's touring has been damaging to the "brand" (this has been debated on previous threads in the past; it's a highly subjective debate, but one side of it is that, even when Carl and Al were still in the band, they damaged (or diluted is a better word) the brand by excessive touring year after year; even Carl talked about this in interviews), but in that sense 2013 isn't any different than 2008 or 2004, etc. Mike's "Beach Boys Lite" touring band did get more scrutiny in light of the success of C50 and getting all five guys on the tour. But if they wanted Mike to not use the name, they would have probably made a move by now. The only person who seemed at all against it in the past was Al, and even his deal was more about being able to use the "Beach Boys Family & Friends" name and billing himself as a Beach Boy than wanting to take the BB name away from Mike.

I think Brian and Al's financial benefit from Mike's touring has been overstated for quite some time. As I said elsewhere, it's an nice hunk of money for doing nothing, but it's not life-changing money for those guys, especially when they would be making much more actually using the BB name themselves.

I think Brian and Al at this stage probably realize that it would be years of legal messes if they tried to take the name away. Carl's estate's position is completely unknown. They would make a similar amount of money either way. The only thing we don't know is if they would change their vote if Brian's camp heavily lobbied them. But I don't think Brian or his camp are *that* interested in taking Mike's license away.

I could see some passive attempts to imply they might take Mike's license away as a means to motivate Mike to get the reunion lineup back together, but that sort of maneuvering would have all sorts of pitfalls; a reunion-by-force isn't ideal.  :lol

I don't see where Brian has any interest in taking the license away from Mike, he seems quite happy touring as Brian Wilson with Al and Dave and whoever as "guests".  Does that dilute the brand?

I would agree that if damage has been done to the brand by excessive touring then M&B going out now as The Beach Boys doesn't really change anything. The group's legacy is safe anyway...

As Mike and Bruce have dates booked for next summer already it doesn't look like things are going to change any time soon.

Where this in any way the case, Alan & David would have every right to be mortally offended at being used as mere pawns in someone else's game. I cannot believe Brian's management would be that dumb or that calculating.

The status quo re: the touring license has existed since 1999. Brian & Alan seem happy enough with it and Carl's estate isn't going to jepoardise a nice little yearly income for doing precisely nothing. Also, consider this: we only know what has been made public. What's to say there hasn't been some behind the scenes negotiating that's resulted in the license to Mike being granted on a permanent basis ?

The brand being devalued ? Consider this schedule for August (fairs highlighted):

  1 - Civic Arena, Pittsburgh PA
  2 - Fair, Clearfield PA
  3 - Fort Wayne Coliseum, Fort Wayne IN
  4 - State Fair, Columbus OH
  6 - Great Woods, Mansfield MA
  7 - Cayuga County Fair Speedway, Weedsport NY
  8 - Monroe County Fair, Monroe MI
  9 - Jackson County Fair, Jackson MI
11 - Garden State Arts Center, Holmdel NJ
12 - Garden State Arts Center, Holmdel NJ
14 - Jones Beach, Wantagh NY
15 - Jones Beach, Wantagh NY
16 - JFK Stadium, Bridgeport CT
16 - Civic Center, Springfield MA
17 - Merriweather Post Pavilion, Columbia MD
19 - Broome County Arena, Binghamton NY
20 - Mann Music Center, Philadelphia PA
22 - Kentucky State Fair, Louisville KY
23 - Du Quoin Fair, Du Quoin IL
24 - Iowa State Fair, Des Moines IA
25 - State Fair, Minneapolis MN
26 - South Dakota State Fair, Huron SD
27 - Poplar Creek, Chicago IL
29 - Chastain Park, Atlanta GA
30 - Riverfront Stadium, Charleston WV
31 - Pennsylvania State Fair, Allentown PA

Mike & Bruce in recent years ? Nope - The Beach Boys, with Carl, in 1986.

In 50 years I doubt anyone will care if the Beach Boys played casinos in the 80s, if Brian toured Pet Sounds in '99 and if there was a reunion in 2012. The attention spam of the average music collector for the Beach Boys is basically from 62 to 77. 15 Big Ones!

And that's basically the norm. Who cares about Macca's career after 82, Rolling Stones after 81, David Bowie after 83? Only the die-hards.

Especially as he didn't.  ;D

I agree that Brian's "recruitment" of Al and Dave and Blondie and whoever else took the stage was not PRIMARILY a "game" or a warning or a power move. Not, primarily, but I do think it WAS on the list of reasons. I believe that Melinda was driving that tour.

I think the two main reasons were, first, to sell tickets/drum up interest. Al or David or Blondie or even Jeff Beck ALONE wouldn't substantially increase ticket sales, well maybe Jeff Beck would, but THE PACKAGE presented had to have a positive affect on ticket sales.

Second, by handing over some vocals to Al or Blondie or an instrumental to Dave, it lessened the workload on Brian, even if it's just 5-6 songs. And, I'm not saying that was a bad thing. Brian's lead vocals on Beach Boys' fast songs are terrible.

Smile4ever, you asked why Brian and Al don't take action against Mike regarding the license. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. It is getting paid for doing nothing. If they could make more money by touring as The Beach Boys, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! They would have to be The Beach Boys. And, then they'd actually have to work. And, I don't mean exclusively physically. They can't make DECISIONS or agree on terms that would allow them to be The Beach Boys. That's work!

I stand corrected.  ;D

Mike Love The Real Beach Boy..?  Is that a new book..?  :rock

I don't disagree with you. I think the Beach Boys brand has been severely mismanaged since the 80s (and parts of the 70s), and  generally mismanaged since the band's inception. Through better decisions and PR, the band could have had a lot better career and legacy. The list of botched moves throughout their career is too long to even be tackled on this board.

But M&B's touring outfit after C50 is just really killing the brand.

1. A very large percentage of The Beach Boys' (Mike & Bruce) shows sell out.
2, A very large percentage of fans attending the shows leave happy, IMO.
3. A very large percentage of fans attending the shows don't know the individual members of the band - or really care, IMO.

I'm sure you and others have/use other indicators to show that M & B are "killing the brand". I don't agree.

True, killing the brand might be a little superfluous, only because I think it's us die hards arguing these points. The normal concert goer who knows the hits (and is probably 90% of the audience going to see M&B) seems to be happy and buying the tickets. Heck, if there was no demand, would they even still be touring as extensively?

If they're killing the brand, how come they're still touring as much as they are ? Supply and demand... supply and demand.

Nah, the brand is doing just fine. I's sure that genuine music fans couldn't care less that a Beach Boys band is playing casinos and state fairs. And the people who know the hits are happy that they can go and sing along for a cheap price. Tickets for M&B's U.K. show in June have gone on sale for £20 for example which will doubtless attract those who would never have dreamed of going to watch the C50...

I think Carl's estate's position in this matter is pretty clear, or they wouldn't allow Carl's image to be used in the Mike & Bruce BB shows. It seems as though Dennis' family doesn't have a problem with his image being used, either, even if they have no financial stake in the "fight."  Anyone who would criticize Carl's widow for wanting a steady income has never had a family member widowed at a relatively young age. It can be tough. Anyone want to be the person to tell the former Mrs. Carl Wilson that she should just buck up and get herself a job, so we can stop this Mike touring nonsense?

The last post made me think, anyone know what ever became of Gina Martin? We never hear about her, if she re married, her life today, etc....she sort of gets lost in the Family shuffle. Just curious, as for needing a steady stream of income, well she is after all the daughter of Dean Martin, probably doesn't really need it.

I think the estate of Carl Wilson is Jonah and Justyn. I can't possibly imagine Gina Martin is hurting for money.

That would be the Derry show - the prices for Hampton Court are going to be about three times that, minimum. Granted the setting is amazing (Base Court, the old Tudor quadrangle) but you're still looking at £60 a throw. Can't recall what it was for Brian in 2005.

A little OT, but what were the circumstances of Dennis' estate selling its interest?  Any idea how much it was sold for?

My guess is that it turned out to be a bad deal for Dennis' heirs.

Dennis' estate reportedly 'sold' his share of BRI back to the company for a reduction in his outstanding debts.

It's not a given that Gina Martin was set for life after the passing of her father. It would depend on the set-up of that estate, who was left what, etc. If Jonah and Justyn were the sole heirs of Carl's estate (not sure if that's been made public or not), there's also no reason they don't have the right to do what they see fit with the assets of that estate. I do think they would not allow Carl's image to be used, singing a song at that, in Mike's shows if they didn't approve.  Maybe they like their cousin and appreciate his hard work and right to make a living for himself, which he has done over the long haul. It may be a matter of dealing with who they know well, for good and bad, versus having to deal with the Brian Wilson organization for a long-term reunion.

Or Carl's estate might grant the same rights to Brian if he decided to use video of Carl in his solo shows.

The "brand" needs its main songwriter and other original members to be most successful. The mainstream music industry and fans get excited when the BBs reunite and tour/ make new albums. This buzz translates into fans buying tickets, merchandise, albums past and present, and other items from the shows or the internet. Such activity gets promoters to book the BBs into high quality or prestige venues, keeping the cash flowing in the "brand". A Cash infusion like this will go into BRI, and therefore all parties are happy.

M&B touring small venues without B,A,D with little buzz to casual fans means that BBs name can only decrease in value since most serious music fans will view the group as Mike's nostalgia act and therefore not waste their time seeing them. Serious music fans are the "brand's" strength, not fans who only know a few songs or think Bruce is an original member.

Well said Andrew.  This is around the time I stopped going to every show within a four hour drive.  It pained me to see them cranking it out sometimes two shows a day.  How does a band with a soul connect with an audience when touring in such a grab every buck possible fashion.  It cheapened them in my view.  Last time I saw them in the 80's was an amphitheater show and it seemed that they we phoning it in when compared to their opening act.

As for all of the opinions about why BRI allows this to continue,   You made an interesting supposition in  that Mike may have been granted the name on a permanent basis.  That would seem to be a very large "what if" .

Didn't Brian and Al think that when they voted to give the license to Mike? Didn't they know that Mike (and Bruce) were going to be playing almost exclusively to those, in your words, "fans who only know a few songs or think Bruce is an original member". Or, didn't they care? "What brand?",  as Brian and Al turned a blind eye...

You and others continue to bring up this topic, and, like a sucker, I keep responding. But that's because I think and wish and hope and pray that a light will come on. Your intent is to hammer Mike Love with this issue. But, you continue to not realize - or ignore - that your beloved Brian and Al come off looking much worse than Mike with this issue.  Hey, Mike admits that he wants to keep touring for the fun of it and the money. He doesn't care who is sitting in the seats. He loves it. But, Brian Wilson and Al Jardine, the real musicians, the real artists, the ones with integrity, the ones who are concerned about the brand, well, they just sat/sit back and let this travesty continue. Who are the hypocrites here?

Small problem with your economic model there - BRI, and the voting members, are evidently perfectly happy with the position as it stands, viz Mike & Bruce touring and paying a goodly slice off the gross to BRI and the corporate members. If the license moved to Brian et al, the income would decrease markedly, for one inarguable reason: Brian would not play something like 100 dates, year after year. The most he's played solo since 1998 has been 70-odd, and the average has been closer to 35-40. My maths never advanced much beyond the "one bean and one bean equals two beans" level but even I can see where the better deal lies. And this may come as a shock to you, but Brian doesn't tour to SRO houses all the time (any more than the C50 did, fyi).

Also, as I've stated before, if the touring wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be out there year in, year out, nor go back to the same venues repeatedly: you book an act that doesn't draw, it doesn't get booked again.

You really don't think that M&B gigs in 2013 or 2014 will hurt the band's legacy in teh long run, do you?

Us fans don't know the full behind the scenes legal action that could be going on between the BBs parties. For all we know, BAD could be taking preliminary action against M&B for the right to remove or change the terms of the use of the BBs name. Much has changed since 1998 when BRI voted the name to Mike since the BBs seemed forever done as a major group with Carl's death. Well there is new life in band after all and Brian wants to be a BB again for the first time in decades. This might seem as a threat to Mike's ego since he got used to being the center of attention " original beach boy" with hired hands backing him.

The page on wikipedia for the C50 lists 73 shows for the tour, which is a solid number of dates. Plus the sample of eleven shows with sources has the amount of money made being about 5,000,000 dollars. Do the math for the 73 dates and that is a lot of money flowing into BRI. Even after expenses, it is oblivious that the M&B makes chump change compared to the real BBs touring. So in short, the whole talk of M&B being a huge moneymaker is untrue with the facts of the C50 backing it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Boys_50th_Anniversary_Reunion_Tour

Which is why everyone is out there enjoying the latest tour from the Beatles, fronted by Ringo Starr and featuring five anonymous backing musicians.

I'm as dismayed as the next guy to see America's greatest band, down to just one original member, reduced to playing county fairs.

But, the thing is, is that the M+B show is relatively quite successful. Former stadium acts like 'Foreigner' or 'REO Speedwagon' can no longer get reliably booked even on the county fair circuit -- they have been playing churches, changing the lyrics to their hits to conform to Christian themes.

Yeah, I'm sure we'd all like to see Brian, Mike, Al, and Bruce together again, playing stadiums alongside the Stones, McCartney and Springsteen. But that's not happening, and so the M+B version of the Beach Boys having success on the county fair/casino circuit is nothing to sneer at.

No, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr would never approve something like that, the way Brian Wilson and Al Jardine DID with The Beach Boys.

I'm not sure whether to believe Wikipedia or not (it's crowd sourced), but even if the figures are true, does anyone truly believe that Mike would willingly back out of a longer reunion if there were more money in it than doing what he does now? You can't say Mike is greedy (which most people think, and even Mike wouldn't deny he likes making good money), then say he turned down making more money if he would have stuck with the reunion. If they cite ten dates specifically where they made 5 million a date, it could be they're cherry picking certain shows. I have a hard time believing they made 5 million a gig for playing the small Beacon Theatre in NYC, for example.

Sherriff, you know that this sort of thing couldn't happen with the Beatles.    Even if the survivors and heirs WANTED it to.
The anonymity of the individual members of thebBeachboys allows this to be possible .  Not so with Beatles ;)

I think he meant 5,000,000 during the length of the tour, not for one show.

Thank you. This is why one band is viewed by the public with a universally pristine legacy that continues to earn the members tens of millions of dollars. The other is viewed as a nostalgia band joke not even on the same plane.

Hasn't the best guess been that Al may have voted against Mike's exclusive license, and was in the minority? We don't know, but I don't think we can assume Al always approved Mike's exclusive license. He reaps the benefit of 25 percent of the licensing fee, as he is entitled to.

A few things: As I mentioned in an early post, the dilution of the trademark was indeed going on many years back, and Carl and Al were active participants in it. Carl evidently at one stage realized this, but either couldn't or didn't do much about it.

The dilution has occurred, there's no question. It doesn't mean they can't still book lots of shows. But Mike himself in his oddly-reasoned comments post-C50 referenced "giving it a rest" to build up a demand. That concept is accurate, but doesn't only apply to a reunion tour. It applies to any configuration. Simply put, if the BB's had ceased touring at all after, say, Carl's death in 1998, then their 2012 reunion tour would have probably been booking arenas and stadiums rather than theaters and amphitheaters. That particular element of the equation is fine with me; I was glad to see C50 in a smaller venue. I'm always happy to see any shows in smaller venues.

But a lot of things would be different if they didn't play 100-plus shows per year, every year. They'd be playing bigger venues, charging more for tickets, Mike's voice would be in better shape, and so on. Mike has "kept the music alive", no question. But there's a medium between 100 shows per year every year and not touring for 20 years.

Also, Mike touring the same number of shows post-1998 is the not the same as 1986, because additional dilution of the trademark occurs when the tour continues with fewer members.

There is an issue of perception in the touring industry as well. Again, it doesn't keep Mike from booking plenty of shows, including small venues in small markets. I wish I could find the article from last year about the reunion tour that quoted a Pollstar concert industry analyst. But it commented on the fact that, among touring industry insiders and whatnot, Mike's tour with only two actual members and only one original was perceived in a somewhat dismissive or negative light, and the full reunion was garnering way more positive feelings and buzz in the industry, both because of the state of having five members present, and specifically the gravitas of having Brian on the tour.

We don't know how "happy" BRI members are with the setup. Accepting and cashing the checks doesn't tell us how happy they are about it. It only tells us that they pursue the money they are entitled to as shareholders in the corporation. If you own stock in a company and disagree with something it does, it doesn't mean you reject any profit you make on the stock.

I also don't know if "goodly slice of the gross" is accurate. That is a very subjective term. Al is making much less taking his 25% of the small percentage Mike pays for the licensing fee. (It is still implied or assumed by some that each Beach Boy is getting an equal cut of Mike's gross receipts; when in reality they are getting 25% of the 10% or whatever it is that goes into BRI, and for all we know more corporate fees come out of that, so Al or Brian probably make something closer to like 2 or 3% of the gross of Mike's touring). There was a thread awhile back that broke down some of the theoretical/potential numbers as far as what the BRI shareholders make on that licensing fee. Yes, it's a huge hunk of money to most of us, especially for doing nothing but owning a stake in a trademark. But it isn't anywhere near what Mike makes actually doing the touring, and not as much as Al (or Brian) would make actually being in the touring band.

We also have no idea how many shows Brian would book if he took the BB name. I don't think that would or will happen anyway. But if they were motivated enough to take the name, I could picture them doing as many shows or even more than C50, so something approaching 100 wouldn't be completely out of the question, especially in Brian's newer touring configuration where he has others in the band doing more of the heavy lifting.

PR wise it has done more damage than, say, Mike touring in 2005 did. As Howie Edelson has said, they need an in-house Neil Aspinall type to get all the BB's on the same mutually beneficial page, whether they are together or separate.

I dunno, there are a lot of assumptions and judgments going on there. All sort of people have to suck it up and go get a job. We have no idea anyway if the proceeds from Mike's tour are the main source of income for anybody in Carl's family. I doubt they are hurting for money considering the incessant touring Carl did over the years, not to mention past and future recording royalties coming in.

We don't know Carl's estate's position. Passive agreement or lack of pursuing lawsuits doesn't mean they actively or enthusiastically support anything. From what I've seen (or not seen as it were), Carl's estate has done a good job of completely avoiding publicly getting into any of the politics of any of this.

Exactly. Carl's estate not sending cease-and-desist orders doesn't imply any sort of enthusiastic endorsements.

The band's legacy is too vague of a notion to really rate. But dilution of the trademark is at least theoretically a bit more measurably. They played arenas and stadiums in the late 70's and early 80's. In the Bay Area for instance, the Beach Boys used to play Concord Pavilion or the Greek Theatre and whatnot. Now Mike's band plays the Mountain Winery in Saratoga. There was a dropoff in venue size there, both before and after Mike and Bruce used the name on their own. Many factors played into all of this, but two of those factors are Mike's incessant touring and continuing to tour with fewer actual band members.

Again, this simplistic math is flawed - the figure you quote is quite clearly stated as the gross revenue, that is, ticket sales, bums on seats. The net which BRI would see, after taxes, venue rental, promoters and management cut, travel & accommodation for a huge crew and so on, would be significantly less than that. When you get your paycheck, is the amount that goes into your account hours worked x hourly rate ? No, not even close: deductions. Also, would that gross sustain year after year ?

Final, there's a lot of mention of the brand being diluted by Mike's touring. Who owns the rights to that brand ? Brother Records, Inc. Who decides to license out the brand to Mike & Bruce for touring ? Brother Records, Inc. Who decides BRI policy ? The voting members of BRI - Mike, Alan, Carl's estate and Brian. The brand was being diluted decades ago, by poor management: striped shirts in 1966 ? Matching white suits in 1969 ?


Polite request: if you're going to debate data, actually looking at the figures provided is recommended, as you patently have not. The Wikipedia table contains eleven dates, clearly states the gross for each show and gives a figure of just under $5 million as the total for those eleven shows. The data is not crowd sourced, but derived from Billboard, as cited in the entry.

Here's something that will likely get me bitchslapped from here to eternity... many of us like to think of Brian as this experimental visionary. Truth be told, if he had stayed up front, we wouldn't think that. I think the closest comparison in reality would've been Richard Carpenter. Except Dennis, they ALL were MOR guys, very 'safe'.   We as diehards get hung up on what potentially might have been, ignoring the fact that in reality they were closer to being the Eagles than the harder edged contemporaries in the late 60s. We bitch about them playing fairs when in reality we should be very grateful that they weren't on oldies package tours. Yeah, from the 80s on they played 'tacky' venues (not my words) but at least they never reduced themselves to playing the Fabian/Shelley Fabares/Paul Anka Circuit like Gary Usher was pushing Brian to do.

The main reason everyone is so upset about C50 is just how good it was...I don't care about the politics behind it so much as the difference between seeing all the BB's vs M&B.

C50 was the greatest show I've ever seen, and the more time that passes, the older the BB's get. I feel a bit desperate about the whole situation, like it's now or never.

It was astonishing - the whole was immeasurably greater than the sum of the parts, and pretty much every aspect of C50 turned out better than anyone dared hope. As for "now or never", sorry but that parade's gone by: it was "then or never", and they chose then. For that, we should be eternally grateful - because it will never happen again, at that level and that pitch of excitement, anticipation and fear-tinged expectation. Chances are, it will never happen again. I can live with that, I have the golden memories of 2012.*

[* provided I never listen to the appalling live album]

The Beach Boys would not be viewed on the same plane as The Beatles no matter what they had done over the past decades. There is no comparison between the two...

Plenty of bands from the 60s/70s have continued to tour with original members missing like The Who, Queen, The Temptations, The Four Tops, The Supremes etc. I doubt it affects their legacy one bit.

The Beach Boys have not been viewed on the same plane as The Beatles since 1967. M&B shows make zero difference to that public perception either way.

I think anyone the least bit interested in the Beach Boys would at least know who Brian Wilson is and could tell he's not there.  The kind of audience Mike attracts is the same kind of audience who goes to see the current Yardbirds, Animals, Four Tops, Temptations and whatever other knockoff 60s bands are still around.  People know they're not the real deal (I think even the dumbest audience member is smart enough to realize most of the guys on stage are way too young to have been original Beach Boys), they just don't care and enjoy the music all the same.

Mike and Bruce are playing Christmas shows at smaller venues this week.......and the C50 line-up would be at those same smaller venues by now had the tour continued IMO.

It had a commercial use by date. Another year would have well exceeded it.

Isn't it proof that the legacy is independent of who is in the band, the legacy carries on regardless of how compromised the original member attendance. The BBs legacy also carries on independent of what the remaining members do or don't do.

IMO, since 1967, with Smiley Smile.

The reunion tour should've just wrapped this week with gigs in China after having played a South American tour and second smaller North American and European return legs.
Great memories aside it was a botched affair. Its demise being one of the dumber episodes in the saga.
2014 should've seen them moving into their first Vegas residency for a ton of money.
The reason why the reunion ended had more to do with power than money and the number of dates.

RE: The license: I have it from an impeccable authority that there has NEVER been a vote about the license since it was granted.

Jeez... really? I'd say starting with 15 Big Ones. They had a really good thing going during the Surf's Up / In Concert / Holland era. They were actually performing a large amount of current material (making them a relevant band again) that was going over well and getting good reviews.

Like others have said, I think more people like to think of the group as what could have been rather than what they were. They were touring the old hits and promoting very little of their new material when Carl and Dennis were with the group. It's a shame but it's reality.

I agree that there would be more of a demand for The Beach Boys if they all decided to tour together but only tour every 2 or 3 years. That would have worked great after Carl's passing. Now in their 70s, it's really too late in the game to be doing that. Who knows how long any of them will be touring from this point on. They've been cranking it out every year for so long that Mike & Bruce may as well just keep going as long as they can. I think it would be great and more realistic if Mike & Bruce kept it going as is but for maybe 10 - 20 shows a year, they could play some larger venues with Brian, Al, David and Blondie if he was willing. Every summer play 5 west coast, 5 mid west and 5 east coast shows that are promoted as such.

I attended two 50th anniversary shows and those are probably the only "Beach Boys" shows I will ever see. I was very happy with the Brian, Al, David and Blondie show in Florida this year and definitely would go see that line up again. I haven't seen the Mike & Bruce show because it doesn't interest me enough to go out of my way to see. If they played here in Charlotte, NC, I'd go. For me, it would come across more of "Mike Love's Endless Summer Beach Band" or something to that extent rather than The Beach Boys. I'd still enjoy it for what it is.

Totally agree here. If they had carried on chances are things wouldn't have been so amazing. We had some great shows and we should leave it at that. I'm in my 20s so I'm just grateful to see them in ANY form.

I've been to a Mike and Bruce show and a Brian show and in terms of entertainment, M&B were much better. Yes Brian's was musically brilliant but I had such a big smile on my face at the M&B show. I'll be getting M&B tickets for this year, no doubt.

I wonder if the existence of the "Love and Mercy" biopic has something to do with Mike not wanting to continue his relationship with Brian in a touring group or recording studio?  His tour dates next summer in the UK, already announced, may coincide with the release date of that movie (I've seen a couple of other films done at the same time announce summer '14 release dates). Maybe he got ahold of the script prior to production and he doesn't come off too well in it.

Oh I think enough has been written about Mike over the last 50 years that a movie script will be pretty tame. I have said before, the legal team would have gone over that script pretty well before signing it off.

Thank you. Well put.

The whole debacle will not impact their overall legacy perhaps, but in any valid biography if the band, it will indeed be one of the bigger tragic f-ups in their history, at least one of the "what if" moments.

As time has passed, I'm more able to view what did happen as  wonderful fluke. But it doesn't change how the abrupt ending was an f-up, and Al Jardine or David Marks for instance didn't have nearly as much to do with the demise as Mike Love.

I believe that is accurate. However, for the sake of clarity, there was an original vote 3/1 in July 1998 to issue non-exclusive licences (on the suggestion of Carl Wilson's estate). It's thereafter it all turned pear shaped with it even being disputed that Alan Jardine ever had a licence of any description. Even if he had, it expired by its own terms on 31 December 1999.

So, even though at this stage it means next to nothing, the implication or assertion that Al was among those who "voted to give Mike the license" is incorrect. I just want to highlight this point one more time, as there has been a lot of explaining away of Mike having the license with assertions that all of the other BRI members "let it happen." Al apparently made a futile attempt to vote against it, and there seem to be multiple indications now that no vote has ever occurred since that vote back in 1998 or so. I will also acknowledge that we don't know why Al voted the way he did; he may have been voting more against one exclusive license than voting against Mike having any sort of license.

Whether it's at all correct or not, Al has often spoken of Mike having use of the name as if he (Al) has no control over it. Al technically has had a say, but this also seems to reinforce the idea that he has always been the minority vote.

Setting aside the irony of this possibility in light of Mike's involvement in the 2000 TV movie helmed by Stamos, I would tend to doubt Mike's actions in relation to the reunion had anything to do with the biopic. Based on what I've read, it's not even a standard biopic the way the other two TV movies about the BB's were. It appears to pinpoint specific eras in Brian's life, and also sounds like it could well involve Landy much more than the other BB's. The movie planning was also well under way during the reunion, so I'd tend to doubt that, if Brian and his camp had the idea that continuing the reunion was at all possible, that he'd pull another stunt like the fake autobiography and be involved in some project that makes the other band members look like a-holes.

The original 3/1 vote to issue non-exclusive licences was Jardine/Wilson/Estate in favour and Love against. BRI declined, however, to sign a contract authorising Jardine also to use the trademark "Beach Boys".

I'm with you there. I've not even listened to the whole thing.

I have the memories of Wembley, and the honour of attending probably the last concert ever given by the "full" Beach Boys. They pulled off the C50, with a pretty good LP and a great tour. We have a lot to be thankful for in that respect. It could have been a lot worse.

Would I go see them if they all toured together again? Probably, yes. But the anticipation and occasion could not realistically be the same as 2012.

Ahh, okay, I remember reading about that vote in the legal filings and whatnot back then. So there was another vote after that 1998 vote? Mike’s license is now exclusive apparently, so I’m curious if a vote was taken up to solidify this, and if so, how that vote went down.

But based on the 3-1 vote scenario you describe, neither Brian nor Al voted for Mike to have an exclusive license in that particular vote. I’m the first to agree that multiple non-exclusive licenses was a dumb idea; it would have never worked long term.

But I’m just trying to grasp the assertion that Al, given the bitterness he professed in the first several years after his departure from the band, ever voted in favor of Mike having an exclusive license.

I sincerely doubt he ever did.

I think Brian and Carl's estate voted with Mike simply because he was willing to pay and Al wasn't.

More likely they voted for Mike's license because it's a known "product" and the smart thing to do for the $$.

Mike having the license is simply what made sense at the time.  Carl had died, Al got fed up with Mike and left, Brian hadn't toured in years.  It's only natural based on those facts that Mike would be the man to continue touring as the Beach Boys if anyone was to do so at all.  Honesty, I think they should have just retired the name as a touring entity completely but clearly that was not in the cards.

I think the occasional one-off might generate some excitement and even endear them all to the fans again. Maybe a gig - say, a big fundraiser - every couple of years.





They can play for my 50th birthday in Stainforth village hall, for example.

John, can we have a BBs convention at the village hall? 8)

I don't think that's a bad idea.  If the surviving members did a couple of shows a year together, I think that would be more satisfying than the current line-up.  Mike and Bruce could then spend the rest of the year performing with the "Cheap Boys". 

My memory of the court docs is BRI negotiated and did award or intended to award an exclusive license to Mike. Al threatened to sue. Carl's estate suggested non-exclusive licenses which were offered to the principles at the terms set for the exclusive license they withdrew from Mike. Al insisted on preferential terms for his non-exclusive, BRI offered terms better then the Mike license terms but Al apparently unilaterally drew up his own contract and signed it but BRI did not and Al was left without a BRI license. He then tried various methods to circumvent a license and got sued by BRI. Maybe that's why BRI has not made any moves to change the license.