The Smiley Smile Message Board

If Al is a full fledged "part owner" of The Beach Boys, why can't he show up with Stratocaster in hand whenever he wants to play with Mike and "The Beach Boys?"

I understand Mike has his license to use the BB's "name" but has he had to legally form another company as the legal umbrella for his cover band?  If Al is a Beach Boy and the "Beach Boys" are performing, what stops him from being in the "Beach Boys?"

Mike must have his own company, legally clear and apart from BRI.

Also, does anyone know how long the license was granted to Mike for name usage?

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

Yep. Mike has the right to use the name. The estate of Carl Wilson and Brian allow it because it's easy income, Al isn't happy about it but was outvoted, he wants to be in the band but for whatever reason, Mike won't have it.

I was under the impression it was due to security. Whenever I try to play with Mike whenever I want to, they always stop me first. Usually I'm quite content selling shrubberies in the parking lot but every now and then I get inspired to want to add banjo to "Barbara Ann" and "Fun Fun Fun".

I think it`s a little more complicated than that as the court records show. Initially Carl`s estate, Brian and Al all voted for their to be non-exclusive licenses to use The Beach Boys name so Al could have toured using it as shown below:

`BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.`

Basically Al decided to tour as Beach Boys Family and Friends but initially didn`t want to pay any money and then offered 5% instead of the 17.5% that BRI were requesting. BRI subsequently voted to give Mike an exclusive license as he had agreed from the beginning to pay 20%. Lawsuits followed.

Al obviously wanted the C50 to continue but I have no idea whether he wants to play 100 dates a year with Mike and Bruce. As they couldn`t even agree one show, it will clearly never happen now anyway.

Thanks for clarifying. It really is a shame their career ended like this. They don't have a lot of years left, and for them to take this petty squabbling to the grave is pretty ridiculous. I say Mike ought to allow Al to join in whenever he wants, and Al should stop being difficult and stick to his commitments.

Mike wouldn't even let Brian keep touring with him, so why would he let Al do it?

Does the BRI licence allow Al to wear stripes pyjamas at night or does Mike have exclusive rights to the ol' stripes uniform? Does Mike exercise that right every time he goes to bed? How does he sleep at night?!

No offense but that theory is highly questionable at the moment.

But yeah the general point that others have made are well taken.  Brian, Al & Dave individually or collectively JOIN Mike's outfit not the other way around.  Unfortunate too because it would be nice to see Mike Love turn up at a Brian Wilson gig once in a while and do a few songs with Brian.  

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

I'm the biggest Al fan around, but he clearly gets poopy now and then, sometimes more justified than other times.

But if anyone is refusing to play with Al because he gets poopy, it's worth noting that those people in many cases have done far more pro-active things that could be taken issue with. The Stebbins/Marks books details one such case in 97/98. Al was being poopy, but he had a very clear reason for being poopy.

So yeah, stuff like the Gary Usher thing in 1986 with Al does seem pretty whiny and weird (although I think that particular episode is hilarious and if they had made "This Is Spinal Tap" after 1986 they should have poached that entire episode for their movie). And clearly something was going on in the early 90's as described by Mike in that infamous circa 1992 Goldmine interview.

But he often seems to be that way in reaction to some pretty potentially objectionable stuff. More importantly, a cranky, poopy band member doesn't seem nearly as difficult to deal with as the business/financial/personnel shark-ish attitude that may have come from some other members.

As I said before, I envision Al sort of like that cake scene with Milton from "Office Space", or that scene from "The Cable Guy" where Matthew Broderick visits his parents and the Jim Carrey character makes Broderick look like an idiot. In other words, there has been a ton of bulls**t that has taken place in the history of the BB's, and Al being whiny or getting frustrated continually at his stage monitor in the 90's and having a "bad attitude" (as if none of the other guys or any person doesn't?) doesn't seem to rank too high on that list.

Back to the 1998 situation, I don't think Al being whiny was anywhere near the main cause. If anything, sources including he Stebbins/Marks book indicate any whining was a result of what was going down, not a cause. It was the machinations surrounding the touring business that disenfranchised Al.

I mean, granted...Mike's proved himself and he's at that point in life where he should be able to do what he wants to and not put up with someone he'd rather not see. But considering all these guys have been through, it is disappointing to me as a fan that they can't work something out. But, I don't know all that's gone down behind closed doors, of course.

Mike love is a rich man, but he's a rich man with a lot of bills, divorces do not come cheap.

Basically he wants to tour under the beach boys name while keeping the lions share. It's patethc but he gets away with it.

One of the things I've always wondered if Al worried about, especially back in the late 90's, was the sort of "status quo" factor. That is, by this stage in 2014, Mike is even less inclined to give a reason why Al isn't in the band anymore (although has he EVER been directly asked about this since 1998?). Read all the post-C50 stuff. It has become another case of invoking a reflexive rule. The current "Beach Boys" tour is that way because "that's the way it has been for 16 years." In other words, Al isn't in the band now because he hasn't been in the band since 1998. We still don't have a CLEAR precise reason he was gone in 1998. We have to get tidbits from books, and sift through court documents to get some of the story.  

Could you clarify for the uninformed, what was said by Mike in 1992 and what is the Gary Usher incident of 1986?

Perhaps the original suggestion by the estate to offer everybody a license was a noble attempt, but there's no way that would have flown had anyone else taken them up on that offer. I'm not sure they expected anyone else to attempt to secure a license other than Mike, but maybe they wanted to do due diligence and offer it to everybody.

Theoretically, if Brian and Al had accepted those original terms for non-exclusive licenses, we could have literally had three bands called "The Beach Boys" out there. There's no way that would work logistically, as evidenced by the "confusion" that occurred by Al simply touring as "Beach Boys Family & Friends" for a year (the "confusion" may have been vastly overblown, but that was a bunch of crap debated online literally 15 years ago).

Also worth noting is that one of the reasons Al may have objected to the original license proposal is that those "clauses" meant to protect the value of the trademark (evidently they never factored in how touring 100 plus shows per year with half as many original members might devalue the trademark) may have included things like no female singers and not playing songs that don't evoke the classic BB image (both of these two items were cited in articles back in 1999). In other words, Al may have broken those clauses if they existed by having Carnie and Wendy in his band and by playing "Lookin' at Tomorrow."

No it ain't. It's on the money.

Here's the 1992 interview: http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

My favorite part of that interview has nothing to do with Al. When asked about Brian's '88 solo album, here's a quick excerpt:

Did you like his first solo album?

No.

You didn't like it?

f*** no.

As for the Gary Usher 1986 situation, you'd have to pick up the McParland book on the Usher sessions. There's a 2013 edition out that compiles everything neatly. (There's a review of it on the Beach Boys Opinion Page blog, linked below). Long story short, Al felt he was owed a little bit of money from some deal involving he and Brian and Gary Usher from literally over 20 years earlier. But the way the conversation is scripted in the book is hilarious, whether it's precisely accurate or not. But it basically amounted to Al being hung up on this thing for 20-plus years. Again, maybe Al does that sometimes, but it's far from a huge sin. It's just an issue like many we all work through in life.

Whether you want to parse whether they are "letting" each other tour with each other, it's clear Mike doesn't want to tour with the other guys based on the evidence at hand. If you're referring to the "Brian e-mail" situation, I think even if that's 100% accurate, it doesn't speak at all to Mike's willingness to tour with the other guys, and certainly doesn't speak to the clear preference he has for touring on his own and doing everything his way.

If my memory serves, Jardine loaned Usher $500 and Usher never repaid him (which Usher didn't deny). When they met up in Hawaii in 1986 for the taping of the 25 years together special, Al mentioned something about the $500 and Usher was incredulous that "this guy (and I'm paraphrasing here) who must have made many sh*tloads of money over his lifetime, still wanted his $500 back. "

*Now, to be honest, if I loaned somebody $500 in 1966 money and they never bothered to try paying me back--I just might mention it the next time I saw him. Doesn't matter how much $ I'm worth. Maybe that's just me and Al Jardine.

Thanks, HeyJude and southbay, for clarifying. That interview was very interesting. I think it's too late now, but Mike really couldve benefitted from some improved "people skills." No, that's not a dig at him, just an objective observation.

I think Gary Usher comes off worse from that exchange. Just because someone has a lot of money, that's no excuse to take advantage of them and not pay it back. $500 is a good chunk of change, especially in 1966 dollars. I'd have asked for it back. The difference between me and Al is I wouldn't have waited 20 years. But screw Gary for acting like he's entitled to it just because Al has more money than him, and for trying to paint Al in a bad light over it. If it were $50, maybe he'd have a point.

I don't happen to believe that to be the case.

Agreed. I think Mike would tour/record with Brian in a heartbeat. Brian's name sells tickets. Brian writes great material. Al however, (as far as Mike is concerned, apparently) is more trouble than he's worth.

Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.  There are a few things about the book that make me roll my eyes (due to Usher, not Stephen McParland)

I didn't read the book, but the way southbay told it, it almost sounds like Al just wanted Gary to remember and offer to pay it back. Maybe Al wouldve told him to keep it, but just wanted the recognition of 'I did you a huge favor and don't you forget it.' Again, I only know what I'm being told, but that could be plausible. And it only makes Gary come off even worse.

A hundred years from now people will be defying gravity as a normal course.  - Mike Love

Nonsense. Brian offered and campaigned to continue touring and writing with Mike, and Mike shut him down. It's as simple as that.

The email is, to put it mildly, a red herring. Even without textual evidence, it's clear that Brian and Al originally agreed to a finite run of shows and activity. Toward the end of that run, they changed course and wanted to do more. As was his right, Mike chose to let the deal expire.

Ask yourself this: If Brian was so intent on not being a Beach Boy anymore, why did he then embark on a tour with Al, Dave and Blondie, and why is Al still on his shows this year? Why are Al and Blondie  on the album Brian is recording? The evidence is simple: Brian wants to work with these guys.

I guess I shouldve clarified. Mike would record with Brian again in a heartbeat if he felt the process was truly collaborative again ("the two of us, in a room") like the old days. And he'd tour with him again in a heartbeat if he could keep the band smaller and call the shots. In essence, I think Mike would much rather have Brian as a beach boy than not, he just doesn't want to put with "his people"/"wifeandmanagers" and that distaste is probably mutual.

Yeah there is certainly something going on with the Jardine-Love dynamic that has yet to be fully explained outside the fact that the two tangled in court around a decade or so ago.  I remember around the time the C50 got stomped someone on these forums mentioning that Mike Love would essentially put up with Al Jardine as 1/5 meaning that he would tour with him inclusive of the entire 5/5 but would not allow him back into the M&B incarnation of the group without Brian Wilson also being included as part of that "package deal". 

The other side of that though is that some (myself included) believe that "Brian's people" are merely acting upon the wishes of Brian Wilson himself and that is why Mike Love is more times than not kept at a distance.  Brian Wilson is my favorite member of the group but he has shown the tendency to engage/disengage relationships with the regularity that most of us apply to changing our clothes.  I may have mentioned this in another thread but Mike Love going back as far as the sixties has always been free with his opinions and prone to speak his mind.  For better or worse he is his own man.  You can obviously see how someone with a personality like that could have issues working with Brian Wilson given how Brian prefers his career to be managed.

Exactly!  If what you mean by "these guys" being Al Jardine and David Marks.  The fact that Brian wants to work with Al and Dave means nothing in regards to whether or not he wants to work with Mike Love.  To me it's clear as day that Brian Wilson doesn't want to work with Mike Love.  That is the long and the short of it.  If you want to get into technicalities you can say that Brian Wilson doesn't want to work with Mike Love except under very specific conditions which likely have little basis in reality as far as how an active songwriting partnership should work. 

If you want to take the point of view that Mike shut Brian Wilson down as far as continuing the C50, the only way to me that is a feasible way of looking at it is as follows and that someone (in this case me) is rehashing for the millionth time: It is suggested by one or either party that The Beach Boys have a good thing going with the C50 and should continue touring and working together as an inclusive unit.  Brian Wilson is agreeable only under a very detailed set of circumstances that need to be met by all other parties involved.  What those circumstances are, we don't know but whatever they were they were not agreeable to Mike Love.  Love then "shuts Brian Wilson down" by refusing to continue down the road with him under those circumstances which effectively ends the C50.  Brian Wilson is later quoted that he was "bummed out" that Mike Love decided not to continue on with the C50 which in reality is true but doesn't necessarily tell the entire story.  Mike Love always careful not to attack his cousin directly when asked why the C50 ended gives a bunch of vague responses from "finite set of dates" to pointing the finger at other parties coming between him and his cousin.  He reiterates the point that he is still very interested in working with Brian Wilson in the future.

Eventually after much prodding he lets it slip that Brian Wilson wanted out after a finite number of dates which is why the C50 tour didn't continue which again may or may not tell the entire story as it's possible that Wilson may have been agreeable to continuing beyond the finite number of dates but only under a very specific set of circumstances which Jardine and Marks were agreeable to and Mike Love was not.

So yeah, Mike decided not to keep touring and working with Brian.

Edit: I mean, when has a very specific set of circumstances not needed to be met around Brian Wilson for -- I don't know -- the last 35 years? I understand that it sucks that he's mentally ill and old and needs to be coddled. But Mike raging against that is like me raging against the passing of time. It's unjust, sure, but it's not gonna change.

Why hasn't Van Dyke Parks talked to Brian in quite some time? I wouldn't want to grovel in front of Brian's people, either, in order to talk to him. Especially knowing it's Brian doing some kind of passive-aggressive thing where he just doesn't want to talk to certain people. Unless they're Joe Thomas. When someone would want to talk with, let alone work with, the likes of Joe Thomas over Van Dyke Parks, then Mike doesn't have a chance. And no one should grovel.  As it is, Brian already worked with Mike several years ago when Don Was was around (was/was!). Those songs never even saw the light of day, so Mike should take a hint from that.

That's the best possible way to explain it.  Al can't just show up at anytime because it's Mike's band... call it the Mike Love band.  Whenever the Mike Love band performs, it bills itself (at considerable cost) as "The Beach Boys". 

As soon as there's any problem in ANY band you've ever heard of they come up with some sort of legal arrangement like this, it's not exclusive to the Beach Boys. 

Well spoken and when described this way it really shows that Mike's band is just Mike's band - it's not the Beach Boys.

I hope someday we'll actually get quotes from inside the circle from someone without a non-disclosure agreement.  If these guys aren't the most screwed up bunch, I don't know who is.

Again, it sucks to be a fan and see how devalued this has become.  I know AGD just mentioned that he had a great time seeing the band recently and that's good some people still enjoy what Mike does but...what could have been.

As I've noted before, this isn't on just one of them, this has become a colossal group f*ck-up.  Whenever I see or read anything regarding the pre-C50 interviews about "old friends" back together it makes me want to puke.

Top of my head without my first mug of tea of the morning, I think it was the $800 Alan loaned Brian & Gary to help fund the Rachel & The Revolvers single.

Post-tea edit: just checked in The Wilson Project and I am indeed correct in every detail.  ;D

Brian wants to work with those guys under his own name. I don't know the reasoning, but it seems that Brian, his wife and his manager want Brian to be Brian, not one of The Beach Boys. There's a reason he's done so little under The Beach Boys moniker in the last 20 years.


Mike wants to tour 100 days out of the year.

Brian probably wants to do a quarter to half of that.

Mike realizes he can't do 30 dates with Brian and 70 dates without him, so Mike obviously chose to do 100 dates without him. Is that the best course of action? No. But Mike is an egotistical human being who has his own desires, and Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

I think, through reading that 1992 interview (though it is over 20 years old), that Mike probably still distrusts his cousin. Brian wasn't a very dependable human being before he found Melinda, and that would be difficult for Mike, especially given his personality.

Now Mike has to deal with Brian's changing decisions, plus what Melinda wants. It seems like it might be more trouble than it's worth for Mike, who seems to have calmed down and learned to enjoy life in his 60s and 70s.

I think it might be the best course of action. Imagine the confusion among ticket goers over whether Brian would be at one gig or another, the refund demands if BW wasn't at the show they'd bought tickets for, and the resultant drop off in ticket sales thereafter. The fan community would be shaking their heads in despair.

And this board would implode.

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.


Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

I can understand why Al wanted to pay a lower rate than Mike to be billed as "Beach Boys Family & Friends". Mike's license was to be THE Beach Boys ie the official brand name, Al's was more a mention that he used to be in the group. Guess which one pulled in more punters?

Something tells me that if Al had been willing to pay up that playing 3 or 4 rarer songs in the setlist or having a couple of female singers would not have been enough to make Carl`s estate or Brian vote against him. Mike? yes. But not the other two.

And I presume BRI knew there was a good chance that the name would be used in some way by another member. Would it have caused confusion for Al to go out either as The Beach Boys or just as The Beach Boys Family and Friends as he did? Undoubtedly it would (and did to a certain extent). But if they were getting more money for nothing then Carl`s estate and Brian may well have gone with it. They were, after all, willing to let Al tour as BB F&F if he paid 17.5%.

I can understand Al not wanting to pay that money but, as I`ve said before, I still can`t help feeling that if he hadn`t decided to set up a band which had 6 lead singers initially (!?!) that he may well have been able to pay. The saddest thing is that any band with Al and Matt taking the majority of the leads would have been vocally superior to either M&B or Brian at that time and with people like Billy H, Eddie C, Bobby F in the group they could have done a great job with the music even with fewer members.

First of all, 30 shows of The Beach Boys has much higher earning potential than 30 shows of Mike Love's Beach Boys. I'd go so far as to say that it probably has the ability to earn for BRI close to the earning power of Mike's configuration over 50 or 70 shows, at least. Why? VIP bundles, merchandise, larger venues with bigger promoter buy-ins, significantly more media coverage and a bigger uptick in related album/video sales. Plus, it's going back to BRI at a 100% rate, not 20%.

Imagine if they (meaning the BB as a group) did a run of 5 shows performing Pet Sounds + GH and another run of 5 shows of SMiLE + GH. You think they might get releasable material out of each of those runs that could make them a bit of money? You think it might get some press coverage? You think that might be how you cement a legacy? Anyone remember the last time the Beatles toured Sgt. Pepper or Revolver? The last time all of the members of Pink Floyd got together to perform Dark Side Of The Moon? Or the last time Led Zeppelin got together to perform IV?

Other benefits? Less time on the road for a bunch of septuagenarians. Less strain on their voices. "Artistic credibility". Riding gracefully into the sunset...You know, gracefully aging.

As far as the voting power, Brian currently has 1/3rd of a say if he sides with the status quo. That influence changes dramatically if he and Al can (depending on BRI bylaws) force a vote. He then has a much bigger say in setting the agenda to determine how they can move forward out of their deadlock.

The license decision was made a number of years ago in a vastly different landscape. Everyone assumes a vote to change the status quo would result in "Brian and Al want the license." I think a more likely change would be "At least 4 BB's on-stage for anyone to use the name 'The Beach Boys'." A subsequent license might lower the licensing rate to 10% if they agreed to tour as "Mike Love's Beach Boys", with BAD being able to tour as "Beach Boys' Family and Friends feat. Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks." If those changes were made then yes, you could easily get away with 30-40 shows of the Beach Boys touring for the summer and the other bands handling the smaller markets during the "off-season" with no one being "The Beach Boys" and with far less subsequent confusion.

They can change the status quo significantly with a decision that makes business and artistic sense.

In the past it has been noted that the licence has no end date. If this is the case, who was the 'dick' that came up with that and how did it get past the lawyers?

At the moment, the only reason I care a jota about this whole mess is that I'm sorry for Al Jardine. If I could, I'd petition Brian to take him as a permanent member of his band, along with Matt, and let Al sing lead on half of the songs.

Height restriction?

Conscience?

Aahhhh... I seriously doubt that will ever happen.  ;)


Those "dicks" would be the voting members of BRI. Names of Wilson, Wilson (estate of), Jardine & Love.  :lol

It`s a nice idea but unfortunately I doubt any of the band members would be interested in it.  ;)

1 - the C50 shows were as profitable as they were because it was a special, one-off occasion. The value would be diluted by regular touring.

2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything. However, as in the past 15 years Brian/his representatives have evinced no desire whatsoever to change the status quo, this point is moot.

3 - by and large, only the likes of us - what, 150, 200 hard-core fans ? - actually give a flying one as to who is on stage and who should be. Everyone else goes for the music and to judge from the 3000 at HCP last week, M&B are doing just fine in that department.

Al gets poopy now and then.

Yea at his age, but De-Pends can take care of the problem.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

I think one more, or a few more legs of C50 (or more reunion gigs, whether they kept the C50 moniker or not) would have done just fine, as is evidenced by apparently additional offers to play even larger venues than they did during most if not all of those 73 dates.

Even for the five minutes Brian apparently was adamant enough about trying to continue the reunion that he authorized the LA Times letter, he wasn’t suggesting touring with the band forever. He just mentioned wanting to keep it going and do more gigs.

Yes, if the reunion tour went on year after year, it would at some point drop off in revenue, prestige, etc. But if any band member wants to invoke that as the reason for not keeping the full, willing band together, then they must be prepared to branded as a total d**k.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

I don't see how anyone can't believe that the "value" gets more diluted every time the Mike Love Band plays a show.


I would think globally there are a lot more people who care about who's on stage - if this is our argument, I could go see a Surf City All-Stars show or even Papa Do Run Run since at any given time SOMEONE in those bands has been onstage or associated with the original Beach Boys.  If they sound as good as the original recordings then what's the difference?  Personally I don't think the Mike Love band sounds like the Beach Boys.  It's Mike with nameless people singing backup but that's just me and I respect what others may think.

The last time I saw Al and his band play there was a LOT of Beach Boys pedigree:

Al Jardine
Billy Hinsche
Bobby Figueroa
Ed Carter
Matt Jardine
Richie Cannata
Dean Torrence

For a fan, that seems like a killer lineup because of the association of many of these being genuine Beach Boys band members.  I guess Mike is the attraction in his show, beyond that, any cover band can play Beach Boys songs and sound good.

I simply can't see (oh wait, I can! $$$$$$$ > Legacy) why Mike kills the reputation of the band more and more and more.  

I would have no problem if he toured as Mike Love of the Beach Boys.

We've had multiple sources state to their knowledge that no vote has taken place on the license since circa 1998/99. So nobody continues to vote for anyone to have the license apparently. They are choosing not to convene the board and conduct a new vote to change who has the license. A fine point to be sure, but one worth noting. In other words, if the license came up for renewal automatically every year, it could theoretically be a bit easier (logistically as well as in terms of any slightly changing opinions/preferences from year to year) for something to change. As it is now, any parties interested in changing the status quo would have to be extra proactive about it.

This all assumes that the current license can easily be revoked if the votes are there. I would assume that could happen; but we don’t know for sure. I don’t know how much foresight Brian’s camp or Carl’s estate had back then. If they knew they would NEVER want to change the status quo, maybe they did vote for something with more permanent terms (e.g. the terms of the license would have to be violated for there to even be a vote to revoke it; as opposed to simply some voting members changing their mind). But I would still guess that any legal advisor would make it such that if tomorrow Brian, Carl’s estate, and Al all agree to do something different with the license, they could. Even then maybe it would involve some business machinations, and lawsuits could potentially fly either way. Such a thing won’t happen anyway unless something really bizarre happens.

Do we really know Brian is "fine" with the status quo? That it doesn't still bug him somewhat? Just because somebody goes along with something, and even gets some financial benefits on the side, doesn't mean they're actually happy with it or think that it is "right".

Because Mike has made it abundantly obvious that he will sue and be relentless to get his way… Maybe Brian/Melinda simply don't want to be put through gut-wrenching legal battles that would undoubtedly ensue. I think Mike has created a "don't f*ck with me" vibe with his legal actions (especially the lawsuit during the BWPS era)... And it is crystal clear that Mike will never, ever give up his ability to tour as the band name without a huge fight. It's everything to him. I think that even if Brian and Carl's estate tried to do so (with Al in tow), Mike would be scrambling his lawyers to find out how he could stop that from happening, and he would drag it out legally for as long as he could. Does anyone really doubt that would be the case?

Not to mention, if Brian really wanted to try to start a process to attempt to take the license away from Mike (not that he could do it on his own anyway), Brian would also inadvertently be screwing over his late brother's family from getting a regular paycheck. That would be collateral damage.

Bottom line – I would really doubt that Brian is happy about the current situation, especially after how the reunion ended so bitterly. I just think that it's not worth it to him to go about trying to change it. Why does a 72-year-old man who's gone through emotional hardships in his life need to put himself through any more emotionally tough stuff? Better to just not rock the boat.

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too. But lets not fool ourselves into just 100% assuming that Brian is actually actively "happy" about the situation as a whole. He simply let the baby have his bottle. The simple fact is that the alternative is way too emotionally and financially costly. I'll bet that the thought has crossed his mind, and I'd be shocked if he's never had even a brief conversation about it, just discussing hypotheticals at some point post 1998.

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Simple, it's clever marketing. The current marketing pitch is ideal for fans of the faceless version of the band, who may have in passing heard about the C50, and now they think this is part of the same continuum. The current marketing gets to piggyback on the actual proper reunion tour. And of course, it's pure hypocrisy. Not that all the principal players in this band haven't done quite a few hypocritical things, but certainly this is a pretty clear case of it IMO.

Thank you. The “diluting the trademark” argument in relation to C50 is total bulls**t. They were diluting the trademark when Al and Carl were still in the band by doing so many tour dates, and they’ve done it even more in the last 16 years by continuing to do so many tour dates and with less core/original members.

More importantly as it pertains to C50, the more I read that “give it a rest” comment, the more it reads like a way to get the press off your back about curtailing more reunion shows instead of just saying you want to go back to doing everything your way.

I had a college professor that told us that one of the main reasons he pursued college instead of high school teaching was that he had more autonomy; he could just tell students to get the hell out of the classroom if he wanted to. If someone likes running their own band and doesn’t like doing anything by committee, then they should just be honest about it.

I need to stop using the rhetorical question in my posts.  :)

But yeah, I'm thinking after reading comments about not "diluting" the brand, going back to the 2012 Grammy Museum Q&A when Mike said he was advised by promoters not to risk "overexposure" or overstaying one's welcome or whatever it was to explain taking a year off from the C50 band's bookings...now in 2014 we see advertising and promotional copy prominently using the 50th vibe to promote shows...no matter what kind of a stretch it is two years after the only real 50th celebration that makes sense historically...

Can't have it both ways. Or can you depending on the definition of "you"?  ;D

It did seem a bit odd (and I can’t say it was bad marketing) that Rolling Stone did an article on a big “summer tour” from the Beach Boys, kind of ignoring that they haven’t NOT done a summer tour perhaps ever. (I dunno if every year since 1962 included a full-blown “summer tour”, but it’s certainly not something they’ve skipped in a few decades).

It’s funny, because 2012 proved that it does make it difficult to do a big hyped full reunion and then have it literally butt up against a Mike/Bruce tour. But it also proved that the transition between the two can be made. It’s too bad they couldn’t have just blasted a headline this summer “Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and David Marks joining up with Mike Love and Bruce Johnston for a Summer Tour to reprise their critically acclaimed 2012 tour. The lineup will play together from May XX to August XX.”

I dunno, perhaps I should do like others have suggested and just pretend 2012 was the band’s finale. Kind of like really digging a movie and just ignoring the crappy sequels that came after and pretending it ended with the first one.

I don't know, Brian and Melinda seem to be pretty content with using the Brian Wilson brand over The Beach Boys brand. There's a reason Brian keeps releasing solo albums over Beach Boys albums, and I don't think it's entirely because of Mike's relentlessness to get his way.

It is funny that Mike continued to wear the “Beach Boys 50” cap throughout 2013 (and maybe 2014? Not sure…). Obviously, he can wear any hat he wants to (perhaps he’ll go back to the “Home Improvement” cap since it’s all about 90’s nostalgia these days).

Ecstatic maybe?

I agree - Brian has indeed intentionally tried to carve out a niche as a solo artist away form the brand name of the BBs. And I highly doubt that Brian has any urge whatsoever to go out as "The BBs" unless it's with all the members, and on good terms. I'm not saying Brian at any point wants to "be the Beach Boys" these days. But I am saying (especially in the wake of the post C50 "firing", or during the bitterness around the lawsuit circa BWPS-era) that if at any point it crossed his mind that Mike touring as "The BBs" was in any way questionable or worthy of reconsideration (even if out of spite), I'm sure that Brian has deemed it quite simply "not worth it" (on a number of levels) to go about doing anything about it.

For Mike Love to use to term "overexposure" (in a negative context) is absurdity to the highest degree. It's only used when to suit his own agenda. Overexposure for bands and touring is a real issue, of course, but it's either always an issue on some level, or it's never an issue. Like you said - can't have it both ways.

And, in actuality, Brian wouldn't even have to lift a finger or utter a single syllable. Everything would be handled through the attorneys. The only way that Brian and hiswifeand managers would deem it "not worth it" is if they view "worth" as a noun.

I'll assume there was more than a hint of sarcasm there, Sheriff :)

I don't think it's a matter of anyone being "ecstatic". I think that Brian (and Melinda) feel that Brian rightly deserves to get a chunk of change for the current "BB" tours, which see Mike benefiting from Brian's (and Mike's own, not to mention the other Boys') hard work so many years ago. I do wonder if Murry hadn't sold the catalog when he did, and if 2014 Brian would have a much (maybe double?) larger bank account, would the Mike & Bruce BB tour money checks be enough of a carrot for Brian to still not want to rock the boat? Maybe, maybe not. Pretty much all of the BB members have done moves that could be construed as money grubbing from the start, and money usually wins out in the end.

As Wirestone has also commented on in the recent past, there were some discussions here a year or two (or more) back with some potential actual numbers to chew on which indicated that the 25% cut of the licensing fee (which is itself only a relatively small percentage of touring proceeds) is not nearly as large of an amount as some of us would have guessed.

Make no mistake, for most “common folk”, it’s a huge chunk of money. It’s especially a nice chunk of money to just collect without having to do anything. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the guys, especially Brian, make more money off of their royalties from the old hits than they do from that source.

As someone else alluded to, Brian has never offered an enthusiastic endorsement of Mike’s band particularly. It’s the path of least resistance, with the fringe benefit of bringing some money in.

We also don’t know exactly how the licensing fees that are paid to their corporation are distributed, because that’s a lot of nuts and bolts financial/business stuff. It may, and I stress may, not be as simple as a big hunk of money getting paid to A, and then four equal checks immediately cut to B, C, D, and E. The money may end up tied up in the corporation for some period of time, depending on how they have all of that set up. I’m sure it funnels down to them at some point, but we don’t know how all of that works.

Yeah, it would be handled with attorneys. But I think the mere thought of money-draining legal battles going on for potentially a long while is just something that Brian (not to mention most people) would want to avoid at all costs. It would be awful. 

Yes, to some degree, I'd imagine that Brian feels that Mike has "earned" the ability to tour as the BBs. It seems almost like a divorce settlement to me. Mike got the band name (which he was the biggest consistent cheerleader of, compared to all other band members). So that probably factors into the equation too.

I'm just saying that there are enough disincentives (emotional, financial - both personal and to his late brother's family, a history of lawsuits from Mike) that factor into the status quo remaining unchanged. Let's just not pretend that Brian thinks that the brand name being used like it is currently is simply a wonderful thing. As Hey Jude just stated, it seems the main factors are that it's the path of least resistance, with the fringe benefit of bringing some money in.

Truth, truth, truth.

No, I really meant it, and not just with Brian and Melinda, but also Carl's Estate. Who would NOT be ecstatic to receive a direct deposit of thousands and thousands of dollars into their checking account - FOR DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - regardless of your financial status or tax bracket.

This topic (the license) comes up frequently, and that's fine. In some ways it's interesting. It would be a lot more interesting if we knew more about the terms of the license. But, in my opinion, we can go around and around, and blame this guy and that guy, but it all comes back to the same conclusion. This license was negotiated, continues to stay in effect, and will continue to stay in effect for one basic reason - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I ask a question. If Brian Wilson and Al Jardine and Carl Wilson's Estate did NOT get a check for every M & B show performed, do you think this license would still be effect? Doesn't that answer all questions? And, I might as well get myself in trouble again. Who is Carl Wilson's estate? Gina (Dean Martin's daughter) Wilson and Carl's two sons? I wonder how strong they feel about the issue? I wonder if they think about how their father would feel about the situation? Are they hurting for money? Just asking...

It doesn't make sense to answer questions and opinions about using the band's name and decisions made around that fact by saying "they all agreed to it" with the BRI corporate votes, and then raise the issue of who is getting checks "for doing absolutely nothing" when that was part of the same group agreement. If I'm also detecting a little questioning of the check distribution agreement itself, again mentioning those who are getting paid for doing absolutely nothing, then it also must be challenging the system of brand ownership in general and getting compensated for something a person had a hand in creating and developing, therefore copyrighting and owning that brand name and identity and everything created under that brand, whenever that brand is used to sell something for profit.

Know what I think about Brian's concern for the status quo, based on past events, observation and what I may, or may not, have been told ?  Unless someone brings it up again, it doesn't cross his mind. Brian isn't interested in the past. Partly because some of it has been very painful for him but mostly because it's another country. He's been there, done that, next please.

Brian is the one who gave up on touring with the Beach Boys over 50 years ago, along with doing TV appearances with them, except for here and there. He even had to have his photo pasted onto at least one record cover, if not more. He set the whole idea of a not-true-Beach-Boys line-up in motion a loooong time ago.

I don't get the argument that the Beach Boys in whatever form should stop touring because they're all supposedly so wealthy, because they're not. And they all have lots of kids. Brian alone has seven children. Kids never stop needing things, no matter how old they get. All of them, not just Mike, also lost parts of their money in divorce settlements. There can never be enough financial security.

I'm not sure how Al Jardine's band had more "real Beach Boys" than Mike's. Mike's current band is the also-ran Beach Boys of the future. You don't think John Cowsill is a good Beach Boy, or Scott Totten? Those guys are good musicians. At least as good as the people who were playing with Al.

I randomly saw Jonah Wilson at a restaurant a few months ago, I should have asked him right in the middle of his meal ;)

But seriously, it's about 3 things: money (for all parties involved), nobody wanting to rock the boat with inevitable lawsuits (and further fracturing the family), and possibly some sentiment from Brian that Mike simply has earned the right to use the name at this point. The amount of pain/headache/family fractures/money drain from legal fees (aside from the M&B revenue stream drying up) would make it not worth it to most people, especially on the Brian/Carl's estate side, no?

I'm going to respond with the most naive answer you've ever read, and then I'm going back to work...

I guess it depends on how long and nasty and contentious and expensive (there's that money word again) the "proceedings" and negotiations would be. :police:

The current "50th Anniversary of..." marketing is actually pretty smart, in that it trades on not only the C50 tour but also song titles that literally everyone knows. However, it does have an inbuilt roadblock, thus:

2013 - 50 Years of Surfin' USA
2014 - ... of Fun Fun Fun
2015 - ... of California Girls
2016 - ... of Good Vibrations
2017 - ... of... errr... errrrrrrrrrrrr... (Darlin' ?)
2018 - ... of Do It Again

And that's it.

Two of whom are in their mid-40s, have families of their own and by their own recent admission rarely see him.

50 years of Endless Harmony :D

True dat. And my point is that Mike's history of lawyering up over the last couple of decades in order to protect his interests (however appropriate or very misguided some of those decisions were) have had the CLEAR effect of implying that any attempt to take away Mike's most-favoritest-thing-in-the-whole-wide-world would be very long and nasty and contentious and expensive.

And even if the level of length, nastiness  and expense can't be fully quantified in advance, the threat is there in the air based on Mike's prior actions, which is probably just the way he likes it.

 ::)

Sheriff, you remind me of an old saying, "With friends like you, one does not need enemies."
Make it "fans" instead of "friends".

Regardless of what happened in the past, the Mike Love Beach Boys group should no longer exist; at least not with the name "The Beach Boys." After the positive wave of critical success regarding C50, that license should have been revoked. The band--as usual--is too stupid to realize that the short-term monetary gain from this is not worth the hit to the band's legacy. As someone else said, imagine if the full reunion tour band was touring with a full rendition of Pet Sounds plus Greatest Hits. Or Smile plus Greatest Hits. It would do a lot to to help the band's reputation and put them back to their rightful place in history. Instead, they continue to consumed by folly. It's too bad.

That's because the Brian Wilson brand makes you think "incredible composer, artistic integrity." And The Beach Boy brand--much to my chagrin--exudes "kitschy nostalgia act." 

And that is partly Brian's fault. I don't see Brian himself doing these incredible tours of deep cuts and whole albums. He did it in the past, and trotted out Pet Sounds at least once during the Jeff Beck tour, but he's done his fair share of all-oldies tours. Could it be there's a demand for it?

They are a nostalgia act that is in demand.  In some ways, the Beach Boys road show has gotten better over the years, there are many concerts in the past where they were downright sloppy.

I think you're really underestimating how many people care that it's not brian wilson with the beach boys.

When you add brian and al to the line up they sell out wembley area and the royal Albert hall in minutes, for a reason

Heroes and Villains surely.

Chick-a-boom  :pirate

Could M&B squeeze in a late 2016 50th Anniversary of Cabin-Essence tour (w/special guest VDP?)  ;D

And lots of people raise kids with a bit less than 40 million dollars. I'm not buying the money excuse. These guys are all wealthy.

In my opinion, Mike tours because it's what he does and he loves it. Brian doesn't tour because he doesn't love it. The fact that Brian, Al, and Carl's estate collect from Mike's touring doesn't make me cry for Mike. He's making his cash doing what he loves, and the others are getting paid for the hard work they already put into building a brand that Mike can collect box office on. No one is paying to see the "Mike Love Traveling Roadshow." They're paying to see The Beach Boys, a brand that Mike, Dennis, Carl, Al, and especially Brian, had a hand in building. Mike may be touring the name on his own, but he didn't build it on his own, and if the others get some recompense for that, then so be it.

The sad part is that they can't come together and find a solution that works for everyone. I'd personally love to see the name "The Beach Boys" only used when all surviving members play or record together. But, given that Mike needs to be on the road and needs to hit those county fairs, there should also be an officially sanctioned touring group that he can head up with his band and John Stamos. Maybe Al would at least get to play a few gigs when the full group performs.

I don't think Cowsill or Totten are better than Bobby or Ed Carter.  Are they good musicians?  I suppose but I don't think they are better.  They are hired hands who spent ZERO or very little time playing or interacting with Brian, Carl and certainly none with Dennis.  I don't think of them as associated with the Beach Boys at all.  They are guys who crossed over during the shaky aftermath of the  end of Carl and then into Mike and Bruce's solo gigs.

In the United States, with people under 35, Brian Wilson is arguably a more meaningful name than the Beach Boys. I work with a bunch of people in their 20s, and nearly everyone knows who BW is -- several have been to see his solo shows. Mention the Beach Boys, and they mention Stamos and laugh.

I think this is an example where AGD's geographical location -- Britain -- affects his understanding of how the band is seen in its biggest market. The BBs without Brian had hits in Britain. That happened precisely once in the U.S. It really does matter to U.S. audiences who is in the band.

If by fair share, you mean a couple of dozen dates over a couple of summers. They didn't go well, and members of his band (Darian) refused to play them, so he stopped doing them.

How many people turn up to watch Al and his band perform though? The general public sadly don`t really care that those people had a long history of working with The Beach Boys.

The reputation of the band is set in stone due to the music they created in the 60s. The people who go to see the touring group nowadays, who by and large seem happy if ticket sales are anything to go by, get to listen to the hit songs that they expect and their image of The Beach Boys is unchanged.

If, in the future, there is a Beach Boys group with no original members then it will still change nothing.

You are 100% correct.  My wife only knows "Forever" because of Stamos.  ::) 

It does matter to people here who are in the band.  Also the concept of "The Beach Boys" playing at a winery here in the USA is aka "that's a group of has beens - when are they playing the native american casino?"

I'd like to know where all those American Brian Wilson fans were when he once played a gig for less than 500 people in a hall that held over 3,000. And it was a debut tour for "That Lucky Old Sun," was it not?

Contrast that to a three night stand Brian  once did at the Hollywood Bowl, capacity of around 20,000 per night. It as billed as an all oldies show and featured fireworks. And it sold well.

And this is where the fan vs. the uninformed fan argument comes into play.  Speaking for myself, I've had probably 30 chances to see "The Beach Boys" since Carl died and I haven't gone once because I know the difference.  I have ZERO interest in seeing Mike and Bruce play in their group because TO ME, they are not "The Beach Boys."  No history with those band members at all.  I know the difference.  Now, when I last saw Al, it wasn't "The Beach Boys" either but it sure looked and sounded better.  I knew those voices and musicians and it felt good to see those guys, some of which had played with the Wilsons and Al since the late 60's.

I agree that the uninformed don't care, they see Mike and think it's 100% legit.   

But the number of fans who really care about the back up musicians really is probably limited to the hundreds. We can debate it on this board but I doubt anyone else cares a jot. The ticket sales for Jones Beach show that they probably don`t even care whether either Al or David are there which is very sad but seemingly true.

Brian is a different thing as he does have a name and certainly makes more difference. Him being included would make some difference on its own but the C50 tour was very cleverly marketed though as it focused on both the 50th anniversary element and the reunion element. The impact of those two things obviously would have lessened over time.

It`s all a moot point anyway though as Al and Mike couldn`t even agree to play 1 show together!

Totally agree with you about how "Brian Wilson" is perceived versus "The Beach Boys". Basically Brian is perceived as the genius who wrote and sang a whole bunch of The Beach Boys best stuff. Sure, he's also perceived as quite a wacky guy as well. On the other hand, most people know he he has a dead brother or two, and that the bald guy is the singer, and he still tours as "The Beach Boys". And that the singer (some know that his name is Mike Love) also know he hangs around John Stamos and parades around with him cuz of a misguided attempt at hipness. I don't think many people know who Al Jardine is, much less Bruce Johnston, and especially not David Marks, Blondie Chaplin or Ricky Fataar.

Overall, I don't think we give the average person who goes to a Beach Boys show enough credit. I'd say most do know who Brian Wilson is, what he has done, and that he's NOT there.

I completely agree. I am 30 in the U.S. and its definitely true. I told people I was going to see the Beach Boys and they laughed and mentioned Stamos. Brian Wilson, on the other hand, gets major respect.

It seems backwards that you will watch Al Jardine and guys who played with The Beach Boys but not a band that features two members of The Beach Boys.

More respect than he usually gets here.

Three of the four voting members of BRI disagree with you.  :-D

Then it's pure coincidence that when Scott took over as MD and Cowsill as drummer, the M&B show improved exponentially. Many many fans think John is the best drummer the band have ever had, Dennis included, and I have to agree. They were both good enough to be the only members of Mike's band to be invited on the C50 tour. And... Brian's band are also hired hands ? They play for the love of it ? All backing musicians are "hired hands". A whole bunch of the pre-1998 BB touring bands spent very little time interacting with Brian and/or Dennis, because more often than not they weren't there

BTW, Scott & John both joined at the same time, in 2000, some time after Carl passed.

Disagreed once, in the late 90s. To be scrupulously accurate.

Really ?

1999 - GH [24 shows]
2000 - Pet Sounds US [43]
2001 - support to Paul Simon, thus GH [31]
2002 - Non US Pet Sounds in the main [41]
2003 - GH (all three of 'em !)
2004 - BWPS [72]
2005 - BWPS Japan & US otherwise GH Europe [45]
2006 - mostly Pet Sounds 40th [11]
2007 - mostly GH, rest TLOS non US [39]
2008 - mostly TLOS US [37]
2009 - mostly GH [38]
2010 - GH [8]
2011 - mostly BWRG [38]
2012 - well...  ;D
2013 - mostly GH w/ or w/out Jeff Beck [28]

So, rather more than "a couple of dozen dates over a couple of summers": I make it over 150 in the course of 14 years. They never stopped doing them and to my knowledge none of the band ever refused. Clay, I expect better of you as a journalist.

If that is a reference to the 07 Oakland TLOS show, then that was simply a case of a hastily and poorly booked show. As I recall, it was booked and tickets went on sale very soon before the show date, and was poorly promoted, and he had played a gig in the exact same venue, with Al, earlier in the year.

A lot depends on the definition of a greatest hits show. You're counting them as any date that don't include a full album performance. I would go more with an actual examination of the setlist -- Brian's shows in 1999 and 2001, for instance, didn't include full albums, but were quite different than Mike's contemporaneous performances.

On the other hand, the summer shows in 2008 were definitely greatest hits -- they included at most two or three tracks not performed by other band incarnations. And they were pretty bland besides. There were a few other such jaunts at the time.

Some examples -- a BW setlist from 1999

1. The Little Girl I Once Knew
2. This Whole World
3. Don't Worry Baby
4. Kiss Me Baby
5. In My Room
6. Surfer Girl
7. California Girls
8. Do It Again
9. I Get Around
10. Let's Go Away for a While
11. Pet Sounds
12. South American
13. Surfin USA
14. Back Home

Set 2:
15. Sloop John B
16. Wouldn't It be Nice
17. Darlin'
18. Add Some Music
19. Lay Down Burden
20. God Only Knows
21. Good Vibrations
22. Your Imagination
23. Help Me Rhonda
24. Be My Baby

Encore 1:
25. Caroline No
26. All Summer Long
27. Barbara Ann
28. Fun Fun Fun

Encore 2:
29. Love And Mercy

A 2001 setlist:

1. Brian Wilson
2. 'Til I Die
3. Dance Dance Dance
4. Surfer Girl
5. Sail On Sailor
6. California Girls
7. I Get Around
8. Forever
9. Your Imagination
10. Desert Drive
11. God Only Knows
12. Pet Sounds
13. Caroline, No
14. Sloop John B
15. Our Prayer
16. Heroes and Villains
17. Surf's Up
18. Marcella
19. Do It Again
20. Help Me Rhonda
21. Good Vibrations
22. Barbara Ann
23. Surfin' USA
24. Fun Fun Fun

Encore:
25. Love and Mercy

And by comparison, one of the summer 2008 setlists ...

1. Do It Again
2. Dance, Dance, Dance
3. Catch A Wave
4. You're So Good To Me
5. Surfer Girl
6. In My Room
7. Heroes And Villains
8. Then I Kissed Her
9. Drive-In
10. All Summer Long
11. When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)
12. Add Some Music To Your Day
13. Do You Wanna Dance?
14. California Girls
15. Sloop John B
16. Wouldn't It Be Nice
17. God Only Knows
18. Goin' Home
19. I Get Around
20. Good Vibrations

Encore 1:
21. Johnny B. Goode
22. Help Me Rhonda
23. Barbara Ann
24. Surfin' USA
25. Fun Fun Fun

Encore 2:
26. Southern California

(All of these from Eric's invaluable site ...)

Anyone would have been an upgrade from Mike Kowalski  :lol

And this is where age plays a role - as I grew up and went to Beach Boys concerts, the band always had Ed, Billy, Bobby and even Mike Meros.  They to me were as integral to the band as Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, Mike and Bruce were, not to mention they were in the band for (some of them 20+) years.

I like Mike and Bruce and no one can diminish the contributions both have given to the band prior to Carl passing away but since then, it's become a joke to me.  Fans from the 70's like me remember the band MUCH differently than many of the fans from the 90's to the present.  Seeing Al's band was like seeing the Beach Boys to me.  Mike and Bruce, Mike and Dean, Mike and the Milkshakes, it doesn't matter.  I have seen clips and heard Mike's band but nothing about it seems authentic.

I would choose Al's show over a Mike and Bruce anytime but hey, I've seen the real "Beach Boys" in concert so what does it matter to me anymore?

As a longtime diehard fan, I hate what Mike has done to the name and the reputation of the band.

Younger fans maybe don't understand but for those of us who "got around" we value what the band used to be and it's hard to see Mike......doing what he's doing.

Again, it's a shame for people who cared about the group. 

Many fans also think of Cowsill and Totten as hired hands and guys with zero connection to the Beach Boys past.  You Andrew, don't hide your preferences as to who you like or don't on both sides of this fight and that's fine I get it.  That said, if fans at the Mike and Bruce show are lemmings and only see the words THE BEACH BOYS on their ticket and they really believe they are seeing The Beach Boys then good for them and if they enjoy it, that's great.  It's great you talk to Mike and Bruce, etc and I'm glad they kind of, sort of give you insight to some things.  That's genuinely cool that you are in that position and as noted, I think you certainly have a slant towards the Mike and Bruce world view.  Maybe there's a reason Bruce always liked Keith Moon and the BBB board better than this one?

I've been on the bandwagon a LONG time with these guys, I've met a number of them over the years but don't have their e-mail addresses or phone numbers but I'm still confident in my position and how I vew what has become a lampooning of the Beach Boys legacy.

Maybe the Brits think after all these years that Mike really was an equal to Brian in the creation of some of the band's greatest hits?  I'm not so sure that many of us in the USA deem his influence to be as great as you (or the Europeans as a whole) do.  For Americans the BB's really were "America's Band" for a long time and the association with girls, cars, surf and summer was VERY real.

What they have become here in the USA is one step short of a joke because of Mike becoming the face of the band (and that's equally Brian's fault) but it SUCKS to see what they are now compared to how we here used to see them.

Again I respect everyone's opinions here and whatever if you don't like mine - I've paid my dues with these guys and again, it sucks to live through this now.  Growing up with the music and then seeing and hearing all of them whine like little bitches and.......PLAY GIGS AT WINERIES?  Maybe that's cool elsewhere but in the USA, the band really used to cast a huge shadow.  Now seeing them on QVC?

The reunion gave fans HOPE that all the BULLSHIT was over once and for all and then - because of ALL of them - and also because Mike has been an asshole before and his reputation is his own fault, when it all fell apart everyone laughed and said "oh, it's the same idiots as the last 20 years" and once again the fans get shafted and their hearts broken.

And Jones Beach continues the misery!

You. Yes, you. I like you.

I felt the same way about Mike's group for a long time. I didn't see The Beach Boys live from 1994 to 2007 -- only Brian. Then I saw Mike's version of the band for free in 2007, and they sounded great. So I've seen them a few more times through the years now, and I'm going again in August. I've warmed up to Mike through the years and I have a lot of fun watching Totten and Cowsill. And I'm really looking forward to seeing Jeff with the band again.

Some of the folks here seem a little over the edge in perceiving anyone willing to listen to Mike's Beach Boys as being loyal to Mike, or so-called slanted towards him. I don't see it that way. Going to his shows and saying they enjoyed them is somehow on a par with saying Mike is/was a creative equal of Brian? That's really stretching it. And I'm sorry, but John Cowsill is an excellent drummer, going by recordings and YouTube videos. He also has some cool factor based on being a member of the Cowsill family (okay, a sort of reverse cool, but still cool). From what I've heard of Scott Totten, he's a good guitarist, and the fact he's well-trained and played in Broadway show bands are indications he has some chops and preparation. I'm not sure about the rest of the guys. Now that they have Foskett, they also have a little bit of Brian's band, too. I don't think I'm necessarily going to rush out and see a Mike show, but I think they're a little bit better grade than what the band was when Carl and Al were no longer with them. I give 'em props for trying and for Mike trying to expand the setlist once in a blue moon. I think most of the people who've been to his shows give him just that much, not that they think Kokomo is the greatest Beach Boys song ever.

What's wrong with seeing Mike as a valuable and integral member of The Beach Boys? And who's ever said he's Brian's equal? He's certainly the next guy in line down from Brian as far as that Beach Boys DNA is concerned and to give him even the slightest amount of praise is in no way a slight on Brian...... Brian's not The Beach Boys and neither is Mike .... If they're not going to be out there playing together, then it's great that we can go see Brian and then go see Mike/Bruce for THAT end of the experience. No harm done. The music will outlast all of them and all of us here.

Serious question: exactly how many times have you been to a post-Carl Beach Boys gig ? And when ? Because if it was before Cowsill took the drum stool, you need to go again.

There's a ridiculously snobbish attitude about M&B in some quarters: on Probyn's FB page he posted about going to the recent LA Arboretum show and how much he enjoyed it, and one of the comments was along the lines of "oh, well, if you've gone I won't feel so much of a traitor if I do". Traitor ? FFS, it's music, not trafficking national security info to the enemy.  :thud

Actually, I doubt you do. Firstly, it's not a fight: no-one's getting hurt, no-one's going to get killed. I do have a 'side', but it's not the one most folk here, and especially the denizens of the Bloo, think it its. I've not handed in my Brianista (old school) credentials and gone over to The Dark Side. My 'side' is, always has and always will be that of accuracy, fairness and correcting whenever possible misapprehensions. The ridiculousness over the ending of the C50 tour was a prime example: while Mike's press release could have been better worded and definitely better timed, the media and fan perception (from many people who should have known a damn sight better) was just ludicrous. I've spent about 38 years flying Brian's flag, so I think doing the same for Mike (and rightly so, IMHO) for about two isn't anything like as biased as people like you think. But, as my dear father used to say, can't tell someone something they don't want to hear.

Oh, and being picky, Brian's played gigs at wineries too. And casinos. Brian's done QVC. But that's OK because, y'know, it's Brian. As for thinking the British fans considering Mike is Brian's equal in creativity, let you into a secret: even Mike doesn't think that.

Anybody that doubts John Cowsill's ability or the "authenticity" of the current group Mike and Bruce tour with needs to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8DTQhSNt0. I haven't heard a band using the name "The Beach Boys", or "Beach Boys" sound this good since probably 1974. Yes, that includes the 2012 reunion tour.

Yeah Mike struck gold when he found John and Scott. This performance is nearly as good as the days when Blondie would rip through the song.

John is better at it than Blondie ever was.  ;D

How did you feel about the C50 band out of interest as none of the old guard that you listed were included?

I don't think that's accurate either since using "The Beach Boys" only used when all surviving members play or record together wasn't subject to any vote.

For what it's worth I stopped seeing the "Beach Boys" after Carl's death as well, on principle. To me it wasn't the Beach Boys with just M&B, and I wasn't going to have any part in it. And you know what, despite my position, Mike kept touring year after year. I did see Brian solo during these years btw. Then came C50, my first BB's shows in 17 years and obviously they were amazing, then the fallout after. It got me thinking, If I wait another 17 years these guiys will all be dead. Am I going to change Mike's mind of touring as the BB's by not going? Would I have a problem if he called it Mike Love of the BB's? No. Then I got to thinking, why deprive myself of seeing and hearing my favorite music because of what they are billed as. I went and saw M&B last year and thought they were great, and I'm going to see them again next month. And if Al comes along I'll see him, or Dave, or Brian, or Blondie too. I'm gonna see them as much as I can cause I love them all and love the music and I don't think there will be another reunion so I aint sitting on the sidelines waiting.

Well doesn't that just prove everything anyone's said about Mike is true ? The man has NO CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER for the fans, nosirree, he just keeps on touring in the face of overwhelming opposition like this. I bet he does it just to spite the likes of us. Are there no depths to which he won't stoop ? How dare he have the base temerity to want to actually EARN A LIVING for himself and the other BRI corporate members ? Has he NO SHAME AT ALL ?  :o

(five'll get you ten someone takes this at face value...)

I also, like many others, felt after Carl`s death that the name should have been retired and I had no interest in watching Mike and Bruce perform. That changed for several reasons... Partly because it became apparent that all of the remaining band members and Carl`s estate authorized the name continuing, partly because the touring band and the set lists improved greatly and also largely because I realized there is no point cutting off your nose to spite your face. Great songs performed by a great band so, as you say, what`s in a name...

Foster's Freeze, I share many - not all - but many of your opinions, and I highlighted some of them. Your phrase "I've paid my dues with these guys..." on one hand is funny, but on the other hand totally true. Isn't amazing how the simple joy of enjoying a group's music can also be accompanied by "paying dues" along the way. It seems contradictory, but, again, it is true. Sometimes I view it as, I love the music, but the individuals who created it, well, that's another story.

In one of your points you included "and that's equally Brian's fault" so I can see that you have a grip on the situation. But, as a longtime fan (meaning you) who has paid their dues and appears to be at the point of total frustration, I have a question for you. When you are frustrated and pissed off and questioning what happened and most importantly WHY it happened, do you ever focus squarely on the individuals - Mike Love, Brian Wilson, and the Estate Of Carl Wilson - the ones who are directly responsible for the situation itself? Why do you/we/I have to go any further than that?

Well, let's be fair and offer the suggestion that he (and most anybody) isn't out there touring to earn OTHER people a living. BRI happens to collect a fee when he uses the BB name (which makes sense, they all own the trademark), but I'm pretty sure Mike tours to generate himself money (and to do what he clearly enjoys doing), not to make BRI money. It' s  a simple return on an investment, the investment in this case being the licensing fee to use the BB name. If he toured under his own solo name, he would not make 1/10th of what one would make using the BB name, so it's worth that licensing fee.

I've never seen much of anybody (apart from internet trolls) suggesting Mike or anybody else shouldn't be able to make a living. Some have simply taken issue with using the "Beach Boys" name. Mike does not have to do that. Just as you can shrug your shoulders about the demise of C50 and say "what did you expect?", so too can you shrug your shoulders at Mike's continued use of the BB name. But some fans who lament those things, to varying degrees, are not stuck in the past or biased or "blueboarders" or anything else. They've simply taken a measured approach to determining that they disagree with those things. To a lot of people, a lot of how they feel about what Mike does (in relation to touring anyway) has to do with his use of the BB name.

I don’t get the C50 thing either, because setting aside all the weird semantics and whatnot, it’s crystal clear that Mike didn’t and doesn’t want to tour like that. He has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he didn’t like things about the reunion tour, and has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he quite prefers doing his own tour. That’s all fine. But why is it so hard to admit that Mike didn’t continue the reunion tour because Mike didn’t want to keep doing it? While Mike hasn’t said in interviews “yep, blame me, it’s all my fault”, he has essentially stated in interviews that he has made the decision to go back to his own tour, that there was a “term”, etc, etc. He’s indirectly at least owning it more than some fans are willing to ascribe the end of the tour to him. Seriously, just own it and get on with it. Mike is more or less, he’s just wording it more positively. Instead of saying “I don’t want to tour in that configuration with Brian and Al” he’s simply saying variations of “We toured in that configuration, and now I’m touring with Bruce in the old configuration”, but the end result is the same.

And why are we "flying flags" for any of these guys?

For better or worse, there’s a point at which who is on stage does still matter. I saw “Rain – A Tribute to the Beatles” in Reno one time, and it sounded more in tune and on key than any recording I’ve heard from the Beatles’ final tour. It doesn’t mean the band has any authenticity though. There are always shades involved. I think some BB fans simply reached their own personal point of no return at different times. Some said “the BB’s are dead” when Dennis died. Some think it’s “just about the music” and it doesn’t matter who is on stage. To me, Carl’s loss and then Al’s departure was kind of the “meh, yeah, that’s kind of over” moment. It wasn’t a big dramatic thing, but just a sort of a sigh. I didn’t know what a scenario by which the band should retire the name looked like until it happened. That happened to be the moment for me. They could have done all sorts of things to still “keep the music alive” and even keep the band name alive.

To me, especially in the wake of C50, I have a new, slightly modified, measure for what I personally feel use of the BB name should require: All surviving core members (meaning the “reunion five”) that are LIVING and WILLING and ABLE to tour under the BB name should be there. If you can’t even keep living, willing, and able members in the band, then yeah, maybe you should call it a day or tour under your own name. It’s not just that Mike’s band “only has two BB’s” in it, it’s that there are five freaking core members still alive. Even that was a bit more palatable in the previous decade, when Dave chose to quit in 1999, Brian showed no interest, and Al may or may not have had some interest over the last decade-plus. But after they showed what a FULL reunion looked like, and then that broke apart while leaving behind members that WANTED to continue together, that kind of changed things again, for some fans anyway.

Honestly, I didn't like it.  It was *FANTASTIC* to see the guys together performing but I didn't like the band, the concert CD or the DVD.  Actually the Japan boot DVD of the show is a little better.

Let me be clear because I obviously get under the skin of the Mike and Bruce guys, I don't dislike them personally or think they are hacks - I just find them sterile and with the exception of Dave's lead solos, hearing them back trying to play the songs exactly like the recorded versions at times was very difficult.  I'm not saying Dennis or Bobby were the greatest drummers ever but live, they were great, they were fun, they were loose.  Cowsill appears to be a good drummer and if you love him, great!

This again is coming from a person who saw The Beach Boys numerous times from the 70's up until Carl passing away.  MY Beach Boys Band included Bobby, Billy, Ed, Mike, etc.  That's what I spent decades hearing and seeing, that's what I like.

I don't know why anyone would consider a winery a low-prestige gig. They are nice outdoor venues, for the most part, and often have very high ticket prices due to a good meal (and wine) being included. It's like an outdoor supper club. Most wineries are in scenic settings and attract an upscale clientele. In many cases, they are also the only venue in their area. I have to assume that people who criticize winery gigs have never been to one.  Brian Wilson has played at wineries,as well as Indian casinos, and once played at a zoo. Not every gig can be at a regular concert hall, acts have to go where the people and money are.

As for QVC, I can remember very clearly that Brian and his band appeared on that shopping channel to promote and sell "Live at the Roxy." Brian did a short concert and answered questions from the QVC hosts. I guess it's okay if Brian does it, or did he cheapen himself by appearing?

You know, I went to several Mike and Bruce shows pre-C50 and enjoyed them, even though I found Mike's stage schtick somewhat hammy and at times borderline creepy. I guess I was just resigned to the fact that Brian and Al weren't going to be involved, so this was The Beach Boys we get. And, that was OK. They were an oldies band, right? And, it was the music that mattered, anyway.

But, C50 was an eye opener. At that moment I caught a glimpse of what this band had been, and possibly could be, going forward. C50 was an event that elevated the band from oldies act to national treasure in the eyes of the public and the critics. To find out that they could have held on to that status, but chose to go back to oldies act, was disappointing.

There's a point where you don't need any more money and you should begin to think in larger terms. Do these guys really need any more money?

Though I agree with many of the points made in this thread, the tone is a bit overdramatic... as usual here. :hat

The old geezers (said with affection, not disrespect) have given, and give, us much more than what could be reasonably expected. And yes, though I am a Brianista I include Mike in this.  :o

M & B keep on carrying the music, and the Beach Boys brand, around, and by all accounts put up a good rocking show. Brian has created his own brand by now, surely less commercial but getting artistic recognition and prestige.

We fans had not only a reunion in 2012, but it was longer and better than anybody could have thought, with a great tour and a very good new album. Ok, it ended in a PR mess and some bad feelings, but we are talking the Beach Boys here, what did you expect, sincerely?

As I said, the only thing I don't like is Al always being the odd man out. He deserves much better. But if he can live with it, so can I.

Oh, I agree. These guys don't own me anything. I do think they owe it to themselves to at least try to end well.

I understand where you come from, but I don't think it's even a matter of money any more. For Mike touring is literally life; for Brian, it is crafting new music in the studio.

The guys have a history of difficult inter-personal and inter-band relationships, and they earned long ago the right to carry on with their respective "things". It's better for their peace of mind, and their health.

Don't worry, nothing is going to deprive the Boys of their immense status in the world of pop music. Not any more.

The Beach Boys and their music are kind of like sausage - I like it but don't want to see how it's made behind the scenes!  ;D

I appreciate your reply and yes, either earlier here or in the Jones Beach thread I commented on how this is on EVERYONE at BRI, living and those representing the non-living as well.

We have people here like Andrew who will never find fault with Mike and Bruce, the Brianistas who circle the planet Brian, the "Team Jardine" players and everyone else who is smart enough just to shut up and watch the rest of us sometimes make fools of ourselves as we play amateur psychotherapists (amateur Dr. Landy's?) as we try to deconstruct where and why it went so wrong with these guys, LOL.

I've been a fan of the band since I was a kid.  My favorite band.  I spent time growing up with them, wanting to be them, being excited to see them, buying albums (oh those rainbow Capitol labels!) 45's, posters, BBFUN and Alice, getting to visit the Capitol etc. and that's covered a LOT of years.  Look at people who love Elvis, Johnny Cash, the Beatles, Stones or any person from your distant past that has been a part of your life - it's hard to sometimes reconcile with the change that they can bring to your life.  Music is a huge part of my life.  I was a music teacher myself and the song "Add Some Music" is very real to me, it speaks the truth!

There is a definite difference here with some of the members and how "deep" they are invested with the band and I get it.  Oldies but moldies (as Mike would say) like me find change difficult and admittedly, when Carl died and maybe actually before that, maybe the "Unplugged" Paramount shows in 1993 closed the curtain.  That was the last flash of brilliance that I saw from them and couple that with Carl passing, the drama then with Mike and Al, it was game over for me.

I'll cut the rest of this short because it would be 14 pages long but the C50 seemed so wonderful and people like me who felt like the Beach Boys were a best friend couple of yours who's marriage had been bad for years finally figured it out.  We were happy, we were relieved and we were F*CKING IN DISBELIEF that it was really happening!

And then it crashed and burned ended badly and re-ignited all the bad feelings of frustration and being let down.  That's a bitter pill to swallow and for newer fans or those that always say "don't live in the past!" it's not that easy to do.  This statement sounds more dramatic than I mean it to be but if your parent(s) have passed away, do you instantly forget about the years you spent together being happy?  No you don't and just like your favorite car, a toy, a pet, a whatever it was that was special to you throughout your life, it's hard to let it go and just accept what is out there for your now - in my case it's Mike and Bruce and that doesn't do it for me.

If all of the guys (I'm not just talking about Mike you "Love Police"  :police: so back off) would simply ACT like they get along then hell, I might be o.k. with all of this!

Brian has had YEARS of chances to be back with the band.  It's HIS band anyway but yet for years, he wanted nothing to do with it.
Al has had chances to be in and out and something happens to go wrong every time.
Mike shoots off his mouth over and over and sorry Mike guys, he has created a rep for himself that he can't escape no matter what.
The estates of Carl and Dennis want a paycheck and have punched out on the "legacy."

They are all to blame and to sum it all up for me, seeing Mike and Bruce call themselves the Beach Boys seems like a dirty trick - I don't like it but I accept it and yes, I'm passionate about it.

Love one, love them all.
 

For a band with history and catalog like the Beach Boys they shouldn't have to drop down to a winery.  When will you be able to book Mike and Bruce for a birthday party?  Oh wait, you can!  This all comes back in my opinion to Mike worrying about devaluing the band - playing shows at ANY venue that will give him a check devalues the brand.  Next time they are in SoCal they should play the parking lot at Chez Jay's.  Play the winery as "Mike and Bruce of the Beach Boys" and that's cool by me.

I believe it's tacky for ANY artist to appear on a shopping network show to try and sell product and that's Brian, Mike and Bruce's band or Al if for some reason he would ever do it.   You may disagree with me (and I think you already do, LOL) but that's my opinion, nothing more.

Sorry, double post.

Let me elaborate a bit on that "immense status", if you think it's too much. We all know what follows, but just a reminder...

Arguably the greatest songwriter in pop music, and another exceptional songwriter.
Some of the best singers in pop music, and almost surely the best ensemble of voices.
Several of the best songs ever, including maybe THE best song ever.
Maybe the best finished album, and almost surely the best unfinished one.
A catalogue of unparalleled depth and richness (looks like a well without a bottom!).
More than 50 years on (and off) the road.

Playing at a winery is not going to change all this, and I have to agree with Kitty for once: I don't get what's so bad in bringing the music to such venues. Guys in Brian's band play pubs too!

I know I am sounding a bit "Mikeista" here. So be it. If you want to see the Brianista, make a thread about Brian's collaboration with Lana Del Rey.  :o

All excellent points. I never expected the guys in the band (well, most of them anyway) would step back to have that kind of perspective about the band and its legacy. But it is true, both for most fans and the music/rock media/press, the C50 tour elevated things much more than most people expected.

As Howie Edelson put it, they went from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger overnight, and did as a band who gets virtually no airplay on "classic rock" radio. (Please don't start explaining how that's offensive to Valli either; I probably listen to the Four Seasons more than the Stones; that's not the point).

Why couldn't the solo lp Brian is working on have been a Beach Boys lp? Mike could have included, say, the 2 best songs from the eternally unreleased 'Mike Love Not War' project, and done some singing along with Bruce, Al, and Blondie on Brian's songs. Mike makes some money from the lp, and gets some songs listened to that would otherwise go unheard.

And why can't the touring band include Al on a limited number of dates? If the touring band plans 100 dates, and Al wants to do, say, only 40 of them, why can't this happen? Is the financial situation so prohibitive?

Based on Mike's interviews, he did not like the arrangement under which the "TWGMTR" album was written and recorded. Despite the album peaking at #3 on the charts, he downplayed its success in an interview. It seems like he sucked it up (to some degree) to get the album made (the description in Rolling Stone of Mike listening to a playback while the album was being recorded suggests he had misgivings while the album was being made), and once the whole C50 project was over, we got a more direct answer about how he felt.

Clearly, nearly 50 years after "Pet Sounds", he still doesn't like the "Brian writes album with collaborator and the BB's sing the vocals" formula, and he actually had MORE input on "TWGMTR" than he did on Pet Sounds (both vocally and in terms of writing), and more input than any other BB. Despite Brian flatly rejecting Al's "flown in solo" song for the album (which even had Carl singing on it), Mike got a "flown in solo" song on the BB album.

Given that a solo track and several lyrical co-credits, and several partial and full lead vocals is not enough input for Mike on an album, based on his own description, I would imagine he would not sign on unless an album either is literally or nearly all Wilson/Love co-writes (presumably largely from scratch), written alone (in the infamous "room"). I would imagine/hope if an Al or Bruce song, or an old Thomas co-write got on there, maybe that would pass muster.

But yeah, I was additionally bummed that after it was clear and obvious more reunion tour dates wouldn't happen, after I briefly thought for five seconds about how perhaps they could at least record some stuff and start from there, Mike then spoke relatively negatively about the TWGMTR album. That album is far from perfect, but my criticisms of it have no resemblance to what Mike's apparent issues were.

As for Al being added for only some Mike/Bruce dates, it would just be an additional cost that wouldn't have a huge monetary return. If some promoter came to the tour operation and said "I'm offering an up-front guarantee of 50% more money in each market you book if you add Al to the band", Al Jardine would be in the touring band right now most likely. Just my opinion. Maybe it would fizzle out again eventually. But it's a moot point, as adding Al sadly doesn't sell a lot more tickets. Some creative "Now with MORE original members!" marketing might help I suppose.

The line in bold is, I think, one of the key points to consider in every discussion like this. I might be way off, but I think this idea of respect even more than admiration or an idea of "success" is either a conscious or subconscious motivation behind a lot of posts I've seen recently. And posts that have gone on for years with similar sentiments.

I think this bothers some fans, and as a result I think there is more of a motivation to either try to diminish things Brian is doing or to try defending something Mike is doing or has done in order to even things out.

That sounds crazy, right? It's just a feeling I get when I read some of the illogical or even ridiculous things that get posted. This is beyond either the group of folks who will always post ridiculous negatives about Mike, or ridiculous positives about Brian...I'm talking about the semi-regular discussions that often go the way of the recent talks about Brian's upcoming album, the bio film, and these threads about Jones Beach and Beach Boys live shows in general.

I have been trying to figure out where the negatives against Brian come from, and have wondered what the motivations may be to go certain places with the ridiculous claims. With the Mike Love situations, I feel the same way when the usual knee-jerk comments are posted everywhere from YouTube to this board, and recognizing it for what it is I write it off as usual nonsense. It's unfortunately where some people like to go, I'd compare it to legions of NFL fans who automatically hate the Dallas Cowboys. I'm far removed from a fan (as a Philly Eagles fan the reasons are obvious), but at the same time I'm not going around posting how much they suck every chance I get!

Again, maybe I'm totally off on this, but I did detect in some of the more heated discussions an attempt to boost Mike's respect level by diminishing Brian's. Is it people subliminally saying Brian is over-credited, or overrated? That he gets more respect or "cred" than he deserves? I think that may be it. At least it feels that way. But there is a certain level of accomplishment that garners such respect, and at least for a lot of fans and musicians, quite a few of those accomplishments involved Brian writing and working in the studio directly more than any of the other band members, as vital as the band members were to the big picture of the band's legacy. So as "producer" and "writer" of the classic music, he gets more credit for the final product.

I'm just rambling. But that mention of "respect" given to Brian might explain more than just fan postings on the web, and may reach back 50+ years into the band's history to explain some of the how's and why's of these past 50+ years.

Just my 2 cents worth of rambling.  :)

.

Bingo! THAT is the bottom line - literally.

LOL!

Suit of armor on because someone will joust me for this but "if I were one of the Beach Boys" at this point in my life sure, money is great but I really would think I would get a bigger reward PLAYING as a band again (like I did 50 years ago!) and (seeing) making people happy as they watch you play.

In the real world I think about how cool it would be to be a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and as a result of your wealth, how great it would be to see the happiness you can bring to a worthy person or cause by being charitable with your money.  That would be rewarding!

How cool is it that you could show up, sing and make thousands of people happy night after night by doing what you love?

I wish I had that kind of power at my disposal, LOL!

The guys have already made not thousands, but millions of people happy. They are past normal retirement age, and have the right to spend their last years as they please. Give them a break... :)

This is a good point, but it's up to them. I think they even tried, only it didn't work.

I don't think some folks realize that playing a winery is not akin to playing a pub. But whatever. Years ago, there were no wineries that offered concerts. Wineries are upscale gigs, not downscale ones. There are a lot of people who love wine tasting and wineries and those types of people tend to have more money than the average joe. Winery tickets with dinner can run close to $300 per seat. It's marketing music to the top income earners, similar to the way that VIP packages at regular concert venues can cost hundreds of dollars. You have to buy dinner packages to get seated near the front.  Just like people are criticizing Mike and Bruce for playing private parties, but Brian has also played private gigs. They simply don't get publicized by Brian the way Mike and Bruce don't make a secret of it. For millionaires, hiring Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys or whoever for your spouse's birthday party or corporate event is par for the course. As long as people can pay the concert fee, they can get whoever they want.  The main way to make money now in music is to play live, and acts will take it however they can get it, be they the Beach Boys or Brian Wilson.

Some folks, maybe. I realise perfectly the difference: wineries are for classy intellectuals who drink expensive wine, and pubs are for (SARCASM ALERT) uncouth working class people who drink cheap beer. My point being that there should be no shame in playing either of them. Sorry for trying to agree with you, it turned out I was wrong. :lol

Didn't Brian and Al play a gig at Mountain Winery in 2007 - and if I recall, it wasn't a secret?

Brian has played “The Mountain Winery” in Saratoga, CA several times: In 2000, 2007 with Al, and at least one other time after that.

The 2007 gig wasn’t a secret really. Al simply was not advertised or billed. As I mentioned in another post on one of these threads, I think Al simply tagged along for one more gig because it was close enough to Monterey, where he had played (and had been advertised) with Brian two days prior.

There was also a bit of a “tell” about Al’s participation, because I believe the venue put out a schedule for their season a few weeks/months in advance which listed something like “Al Jardine’s Endless Summer Band” as an *opening act* for Brian. Not sure if that was ever the actual plan, but the ticket simply simply said “Brian Wilson”, and Al just happened to show up.

But it’s easy to just passively say that about them or anybody else. When the discussion partly hinges on those members disagreeing about how/when/why they are spending that time and in what fashion they are doing it, it’s a bit more difficult to just say “they should be able to do whatever they want.” If that’s the attitude, that’s fine, but that kind of precludes even caring about most of the discussion on this topic. 

I should also add that this whole bit about wineries I think is predicated on maybe not fully understanding what “playing a winery” consists of. Most of these “wineries” are not simply functioning wineries where they set up a stage and some folding chairs like they do at a street fair or something. They are fully-functioning concert venues, with the “winery” aspect sometimes secondary (I wouldn't be surprised if, in some cases, there is not an actual functioning winery anymore on or near the grounds where the concert venue is located). They are operated, booked, etc. as concert venues.

If anything, any criticism toward playing these venues should be opposite of the “these venues are beneath them”, and would be more along the lines of these being overly-upscale shows with often excessively priced tickets, often partly catering to wealthy season ticket holders who attend the shows kind of like “whales” get comped tickets for casino shows.

I’m getting older and I’m cranky around concert crowds, so I don’t particularly enjoy the drunk yahoos at shows where they simply had to pay $5 to get into the fair, nor do I enjoy the drunk rich crowd at the winery who pay more attention to their plastic “glass” of wine and talk through the show rather than pay attention to the music.  :lol

in complete agreement,  especially in regards to the last part

http://www.mountainwinery.com/concerts

Steely Dan iis  playing there.

There are wineries and then there are Wineries.  The Mountain is a beautiful venue. 

Same with casinos.  Some are classy with great concert rooms. Some Zoos have beautuful concert venues.

Hell, Elton John has played private gigs. Huge names do it.

indeed.

http://weird-news.yoexpert.com/celebrity-mash-up-12071/would-you-like-paul-mccartney-playing-music-at-you-3311.html

Playing casinos and Vegas doesn't have the same stigma it once did 25 + years ago. Back then, your career was dead if you played Vegas. Nowadays, your career is over if you don't.

Winery!

(http://weeklywinejournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/page-springs-cellars-harvest-fest-2010-269-copy.jpg)

I'm kidding!  I realize since wince made a comeback that many of the high end places have very nice entertainment facilities, often they are nicer upgrades from older amphitheaters and that's cool.  I'll lay off the winery references but I still think that Magic Mike is a hypocrite when he worries about watering down the brand because he will not say no to playing anywhere, anytime.  He and his ensemble played a venue here in town for free a number of years ago at a dive that was built illegally in the flood plain and thank goodness the place finally flooded out and closed last year.  Low budget.

Also, when it comes to casinos, sure, there are certainly the high end ones but  are very average at best (the ones where the country singers you haven't heard from in years show up). 

Devaluing the brand, another crutch for some peeps to lean on.

Cheers!

(http://sites.duke.edu/french112sa_01_2ss2012/files/2012/07/aging-wine-cheers-red-wine-xl.jpeg)

I agree 100%.

There’s little question that if a band doesn’t “oversaturate” the market, when they *do* go out and tour, they can book larger venues and get potentially more prestigious bookings and whatnot. This is true for relatively well-known artists with a following and a pool of fans who won’t forget about them after five minutes. Some bands have to stay out there to keep up name recognition. This is not true of the Beach Boys, at least as far as touring *every* year.

The “Beach Boys” brand has no problem booking plenty of shows. However, there is still a “value” ascribed to their brand by the concert/tour industry. I wish I could find the article, but there was an industry expert (I think the article was on Pollstar or something like that) who commented around the time of C50 that there was/is a perception in the industry that the “Beach Boys” as a touring act have been a lesser brand because of the erosion of original/core band members, and they specifically spoke to how the C50 tour, because of its membership, was going to give them a serious uptick in terms of their perception in the industry. This was coming not from a “hardcore” fan, or even necessarily a fan, but from someone in the industry who knows which names have which perception in the industry.

If the goal is just to exist somewhere out there, playing gigs in some form, then the industry perception doesn’t matter much. But if you’re trying to build a brand rather than just keep it from expiring, then stuff like that matters. There were apparently those in the band years ago who understood the possibility of overexposure, such as Carl. But there was and is a tradeoff that they’re willing to make, and it involves more money sooner rather than trying to cultivate a better perception or image. It’s “status quo” to the max. Clearly they’ve reached a point where bookings and revenue aren’t sliding (I would assume), so it’s easier to just keep it the way it is. It’s also probably too late to build demand simply for the name. If the “Beach Boys” didn’t tour in 2014, would they get more better bookings in 2015? Maybe not. But if a full five-man lineup toured once every 5 to 7 years, they probably would. No, that isn’t realistic when it comes to the BB’s for about a million reasons; I realize.

I wonder how long it will take for BRI to realize the money they could earn with a touring "Tribute to the Beach Boys" which is approved by, licensed by and ultimately signed off by BRI?

Judith Belishi and Dan Aykroyd make a boatload of cash each year from the Blues Brothers review.

http://bluesbrothersofficialsite.com/p-9892-the-official-blues-brothers-revue.html

 >:D >:D >:D

They realize it and it will happen once Mike stops

Make it a special birthday party for $30,000-$75,000.
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2gt3trq.jpg)

Unfortunately, not much is beneath any working musician these days ...... This is mostly out of necessity, not greed.

Wouldn`t happen though. Brian, Al　and David can all now bill themselves as, `of The Beach Boys` on promotional material it seems but that doesn`t seem to have helped Al oor David to book a huge number more gigs.

Mike pays for The Beach Boys name because he needs it.

Hired hands, every last one of them.


You're new here, aren't you ?  ;D

Yep, on the private gig booking site, they headline Al and David's Surf All Stars as "Original Beach Boys." But I don't know how many jobs they've gotten in spite of that. It's hard to know, because most truly private events are not publicized. There must be a demand for surf-themed bands, though, because Papa Doo Run Run has a calendar on their site where at least a couple of gigs a month are blocked off for private parties. They may find it easier to get work that way because I'm sure they're a lot cheaper than any of the three versions of touring Beach Boys.

The Minnesota Zoo has a fantastic space for shows, and BW's show there (last summer?) was really fantastic. Beautiful venue. (That show included a much-lauded GOK, which I actually thought was more notable for an irate Probyn not having his french horn and Scott having the wrong sound on his keyboard, making me assume there may have been some set list confusion...)

As for those who have issues with private gigs, I guess I say get over it. It's not rare, whether oldies acts or current hitmakers. Cruises with featured artists, corporate events, social aristocracy, doesn't matter: it happens. Elton John playing Rush Limbaugh's wedding, if I'm not mistaken. Lana Del Rey doing Kanye West's and Kim Kardashian's wedding. The list goes on almost infinitely. The little guy is the little guy, and the big paycheck is the big paycheck.

This is by far my fave:

http://cruisetotheedge.com/

It seems that not only there are some "intellectual" types here who think pubs are beneath them, but they also have no idea what a "pub" can be. There are enormous and beautiful pubs, in Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere, where there is live music by performers ranging from good local groups with moderate international following, to the great Chieftains.  

Extolling the magnificence of wineries vs. pubs is a bit ridiculous, though I understand that the equation here is WINERY: where the Exalted M & B Beach Boys play - PUB: where negligible "Hired hands" (according to AGD) like Brian's Band play.

Now excuse me, I'm off to the nearest pub to quaff a pint or two, exchange rough jokes with the other commoners there and listen to some jigs (no, it's NOT a misspelling for "gigs"). >:D

Some of the most revered, longstanding venues for live music in Nashville, for example, are pubs, coffee houses, cafes, restaurants!

I don't know if we're getting into splitting hairs as to what is what, but a bar (probably not a pub) in Minneapolis, The Uptown, was one of the greatest venues in town here through some of the city's greatest eras. It was demolished a few years back to build an Apple Store or some sh*t, but it was a fantastic shithole with a wonderful breakfast and a spectacular history. Replacements, Husker Du, Soul Asylum, not to mention more great touring acts than you can imagine. Nothing special ... but really special. I was proud to play there ... sometimes for a couple dozen people. Hence me not being on the list of greats to play there!

And Brian also plays at wineries. Found an online expired ad for a past Brian winery gig. Complete with dinner.
(http://oi57.tinypic.com/ws8bac.jpg)

I'm not sure why this needs to be reiterated. I mentioned a few posts back that Brian has played the Mountain Winery in Saratoga at least three times.

Nothing wrong with playing wineries.  I've seen some good shows at wineries including the venue name checked in the above posting.

As reiterating is the new name of originality, I'll be original too and reiterate that there's nothing wrong in playing pubs, either. Even commoners should have the right to their fleeting moment in the Sun.  Even in sorry 2014. >:(   

The Dakota is a cool place too although not like the Uptown was.

It's great--including the food in general and happy hour wine specials in particular--but a totally different thing. Uptown was a (glorious) shithole. The Dakota is pretty nice.

the Mountain Winery at Saratoga is a primo venue.  I saw Mikes band there twice under the California stars.  An ideal place.    And by the way, Steely Dan is playing a two night gig there in a couple of days .   the wine and dinner package takes place at the winery before the show.   I guess performers can opt to eat with the elite venue supporters if they wish.
for me, the better option is to take a picnic with a bottle of wine and sit on the mountainside overlooking Silicon Valley for and hour or so before entering the venue.   
many of the regular attendees of the concert series  do this for every show.