The Smiley Smile Message Board

BRI granted Mike the right to tour as “The BBs”, but I wonder if it ever crossed Mike’s mind to try and get the right to record as “The BBs”?

I’d imagine if he was able to, he’d have released “Santa’s Going to Kokomo” and “Pisces Brothers” under “The BBs” name if he could.

Was this ever something that was even on the table at the time following Carl’s passing? Was it a proposal that was rejected by BRI to somehow keep the brand name in higher esteem (or controlled by BW) for studio projects, or was it something that never crossed Mike’s mind whatsoever?  Was this a reaction to Summer In Paradise?

What do y’alls think?

The Unleash the Love songs were very obviously written with a solo project in mind as judged by the subject material (and the fact that many of the older songs could have been issued as Beach Boys songs years ago if Mike had wished it).

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Did Mike even try to propose terms that were then rejected/outvoted?

I'm thinking that the failure of "Summer In Paradise" probably is why Mike never got the right to use the BB name for recording after Carl's passing. (I'm actually one of the few who thinks SIP is a bit underrated, only in that I kinda sorta dig about 4-5 songs as guilty pleasures). After all, if SIP had done decently, I'd imagine he'd have figured out a way to negotiate a way to have released a "BB" album post '98. He'd have some bragging rights (not that Mike's a braggart or anything like that  ;D) to claim that a BB album he oversaw was worthy. 

I'm just trying to understand if it was a 1998 BRI group consensus that made it impossible for this to ever happen, or if Mike himself never even attempted/wanted to try to have the legal right himself.

Just my opinion, Mike has always been FAR more interested in touring than recording in the studio, and he honestly believes that Brian's better in the studio than he is (and that he's better at touring than Brian). 

In Mike's mind, everything makes sense, everything's fair, and he's never done anything wrong to anybody.  So he sees it as 'fair' that Brian would basically be involved, in the studio, for it to be "The Beach Boys"... and that Mike's always been the one leading the tours so he has every right to tour under the name. 

I think once Kokomo went big, Mike felt validated (doing a Beach Boys hit that Brian didn't have anything to do with) and never felt the itch to 'out record' Brian in the studio ever again. 

I think he remembers fondly recording with Brian, Brian completely impressed him in the studio, and he wouldn't want to do a "Beach Boys" record without Brian, even though he's perfectly happy to tour without Brian as the Beach Boys (because he feels Brian isn't good at touring). 

Just my opinion. 

Interesting theory.

However, I think that went "Kokomo" got back, it didn't scratch the itch for Mike as far as "hanging it up" after that. Because he made Still Cruisin' and Summer in Paradise after its success, and I think that he though he had a new "formula" as evidenced by "Kokomo" rewrites like "Still Cruisin'" and a decent amount of the stuff on SiP. Unfortunately for Mike, "Kokomo" was just lightning in a bottle, and the dismal chart showing and horrendous reviews for Summer in Paradise showed the public had no appetite for any of this kinda stuff by the early '90s. And to think, he wanted to name the Beach Boys follow up album Masterpiece! Good God!!

But anyways, while for the most part I feel that he let go of recording as The Beach Boys (unless Brian was there) after Carl died. However, we must remember that around this time was the release the all-time classic Mike Love, Bruce "Beach Lover, NASCAR Lover" Johnston & David Marks of the Beach Boys Salute NASCAR, which although credited to those three individually, sure seems like it was designed to fool consumers into thinking they were buying a "Beach Boys" album. I mean, look at the cover art....

(http://www.beachboys.com/nascar.jpg)

It's surely not a coincidence that the name "Beach Boys" is featured very, very prominently. So while I'd say maybe Mike wasn't chompin' at the bit to record new stuff as "The Beach Boys", if he had his way, I'm sure he woulda been just fine with making new "Beach Boys" albums without any other Beach Boys.

Quote from Bittersweet Insanity : The Fight For Brian Wilson's Soul by Bill Holdship

"Even though the Brian-less Beach Boys scored a hit with Kokomo in 1988 at the same time that Brian's critically acclaimed debut solo LP failed to make a huge dent in the Billboard charts, the Beach Boys have managed to release one song in the year and a half since they named Mike Love "recording captain" - an embarrassing version of Crocodile Rock for the Elton John-Bernie Taupin tribute LP Two Rooms. Brian wasn't invited to the sessions."

This article was written in 1991, so Mike obviously tried to record under the BB's name in the wake of Kokomo without much success. Did BRI really appoint him "recording captain", though ?

That's what I'm curious about too. Obviously Mike was "recording captain" of SIP, and I have to think that this album happened because of the "cred" he earned or at least claimed was his in the wake of "Kokomo".

Mike clearly was attempting to lead the charge in a recording/writing capacity (with an assist by Terry Melcher, but Mike was surely boss)... was SIP's failure the reason that he never achieved that "recording captain" position again, and was that entirely by choice?

I know Mike prefers the relative safety and risk aversion of touring the hits, without risk of criticism of subpar BB studio work blamed on him, but I guess what I'm wondering is: would Mike have gone back to the studio post SIP at any point (sans Brian involvement), recording as "The BBs" if he'd had the opportunity to do so?

If a major record label had been willing to release it then very possibly. But I haven`t heard any rumours of that nature.

I think the `release` of the Nascar CD shows that if he was offered the right business deal that Mike would release something as `Mike Love of the Beach Boys`. Releasing entirely new product as `The Beach Boys` would be an entirely different thing from issuing some Adrian Baker remakes though.

I think there was simply a point where, for the most part, the Beach Boys stopped being a fully-functioning band that does what bands typically do, which is release albums and tour. By the 80’s, they had clearly stopped prioritizing recording. In, say, 1973, or even 1979, the Beach Boys could still be seen as a “recording group” who also toured. By the mid-late 80’s, and certainly the 90’s and onward, they were, to put it most sympathetically, a band that primarily toured and then occasionally did some studio work. A more cynical view would be that, at a certain stage, the Beach Boys were largely a registered trademark under which a group of musicians toured.

I think the late 80’s and early-mid 90’s were simply some final attempts at taking a stab at it again. The success of “Kokomo” probably fueled “Still Cruisin’” (both in terms of creating a motivation to do an album, and in terms of hooking Capitol into a one-shot record deal). As for “Summer in Paradise”, I don’t think Mike spearheading that album in 1992 was anything like what would occur today. He apparently had the support of enough additional group members to get “SIP” made. I’m not sure how much Brian knew or cared or had any say in whether “SIP” came out. All the other BB’s appear on it, which would imply even if he was against it, he was outvoted. In 1992, he was also in the midst of being extracted from the Landy situation, so I don’t know how he or a potential conservator might have played a role in having any say. I would imagine “SIP” got made because the other voting members of the group either willingly or begrudgingly rolled over and handed over artistic control to Mike.

Recently re-reading some bits of the Usher “Wilson Project” book, it appears that even into 1987, the group saw themselves as a viable recording group to some degree, so much so that they saw fit to specifically hold meetings on the subject and outline, at one stage, that Brian was “out” as the group’s producer and Terry Melcher was “in.”

Simply put though, presently Mike would need approval and/or a different license to record under the BB name. As others have pointed out, I think he has very little interest in doing this in any event. He does seem to see the touring band as his bailiwick.

I would also guess, especially now, that he would not so easily obtain a license from BRI to release an album under the BB name. I’m not as certain Brian would agree to that at this stage. The cost/benefit ratio would be nothing like it is for the touring setup. An album under ideal circumstances with all five members would not necessarily be a huge moneymaker. So an album with only Mike and Bruce (both in terms of writing and selling power) would likely do even more poorly, and could potentially result in damaging reviews as well.

Then, there's the record company factor. Post Kokomo, they may have been willing to take a risk on a Brian-less Beach Boys album. But, with Mike unable to follow that up with anything else, we may have reverted to Pre-Kokomo status of "No Brian, no Beach Boys."

Given that Brian has consistently released albums on major labels -- and indeed, put the C50 record deal together without the rest of the group -- this sure seems like a big factor.

As I recall, Summer in Paradise did not start out as a Beach Boys album.  It began as a Mike Love/Terry Melcher/Bruce Johnston recording project, with the idea of making the ultimate "summer album."  Gradually, Carl was coerced or persuaded to participate, and then Al made his small contributions.  It sort of stumbled into becoming a Beach Boys album as the others came in.

Well, Al was off at behavior modification camp or something along those lines during much of the recording, IIRC.

 :lol

I've always wondered what the deal was with Al around that time. We pretty much have that one Mike interview from Goldmine where he talks a bit about Al's issues. I also recall reading there may have been an issue with tinnitus, but that seems unclear.

Listening to "SIP" years later, while Carl and Al's vocals (and a small handful of decent/catchy compositions) are the saving grace of the album, I was surprised by how awful and dated the production is. The production on this album, especially the "drums" (not sure how much of the drums are real), sounds more fake and dated than even the '85 album in most cases. I don't know how much has to do with perhaps low sampling rates or something used on that very early-era ProTools recording setup. But the whole thing sounds very shrill, thin, tinny, etc. Even the cheesy 80's synths on the '85 album somehow have more warmth sonically.

Seriously, just about anything else they did in 5-10 years before or after that album sounds so much better sonically. That's not even getting into the compositions.

Keep in mind that going back to the band's first attempts to shop for a new label after the Capitol agreement was up, Brian's participation was a key factor to the point where the contracts going back to those early Warner/Reprise negotiations stipulated that he would have to be involved to a certain degree in the recording process, or else there was no deal. And even into the later 70's, the band had to tempt potential "buyers" with things like the Smile tapes and Brian's involvement in the process in order to wrangle better offers from bigger labels.

That's all recorded history, but important to note because when Brian was definitely not involved in an album project, and publicly so, the results were Summer In Paradise which did nothing to capitalize on the MTV/single/soundtrack success of Kokomo, in fact it could be argued the album took whatever momentum and value it had given the Beach Boys brand name and squandered it.

Forward to That's Why God Made The Radio - The deal was struck, Brian was actively on board, the album goes top 5 on the charts.

It's pretty simple logic from a sales/value perspective, when Brian is involved in a Beach Boys project along with original members, it has many times the value to labels and sales potential than when he is not. And I think it would be a hard sell if not an impossible one in 2014 and beyond (and going back to the 90's) to shop a Beach Boys album without Brian Wilson's name on it somewhere. In fact there is probably no desire to even consider shopping such a project as long as the band members are still active because the interest wouldn't be there.

Ok, now we're debating Mike's ulterior motives IF he decided to record a new BB album by himself.

Next: let's debate Al Jardine's pathos if he decided to become a serial killer.

Say that again, Steve? SIP did not start out as a Beach Boys album?

Alan was 'suspended' from the band due to a serious attitude problem. There was a band meeting, issues were addressed and and he made his contributions to the album.


Uh... Brian didn't put together the TSS/TWGMTR/C50 package together all on his own. That's my understanding, anyway.

I did not know that either. Then again, I'm not the biggest BBs historian. :P

I haven't heard that before either.  I'd be interested to hear about this in more detail.

Yes, thus my poor attempt at a joke.


You'd probably want to add the new solo record to that. It's my understanding it's part of the deal as well.

And yes, Joe helped put that all together, probably along with Melinda. As with most rock stars, when you say someone -- like Elton John, let's say -- makes a deal with their label, it's assumed they are not actually doing the business (or even conceptual) side on their own. But it's simply long-winded to add that it was actually done by Frank Presland and Johnny Barbis along with David Furnish (in EJ's case).

The point, I guess, is that Brian's camp put the deal together.

That really interesting Joe Thomas interview from 2012 actually did say that it basically was Brian that first called him up to check out the material they put together in the '90s, and then also that it was Brian who brought a tape of four songs (including "Summer's Gone) to the Capitol Tower to see if they'd be interested in a new Beach Boys album. So if indeed Joe was telling the truth, then Brian did in fact have a hand in that whole deal.

I think it's a discussion about whether Mike has attempted or considered recording such an album. I suppose that would include a discussion of motives. Not so much ulterior. If he wanted to record a BB album, I think the motive would be pretty obvious as it is with any artist.

I think the discussion also concerns more whether he would be able to record such an album.

It's not a crazy scenario. The SIP album isn't too far removed from such a scenario.

AGD would likely point out the key phrase in his response is "all on his own." So Brian definitely had a hand in it, but the deal was bigger than just a new BB album, and had many more moving pieces. And, like most rock stars, he didn't work it all out himself.

Factor in 'Celebration' and similar projects, and it's pretty obvious he's always tried to milk the BBs brand (not the brand name, but the conceptual brand) for what it's worth. Which is understandable. To quote HeyJude, "I think the motive would be pretty obvious as it is with any artist." It's an aspect (of varying degree, to be fair) of all the other solo/side careers, as well. Although at the end of the day, ML is probably the most commercially oriented of all the Boys. And the big bucks come in if something is labeled "The Beach Boys".

But was Al “suspended” from all group activities, or just not invited to the “SIP” sessions? I don’t recall Al missing any large string of shows in the 1991-1992 timeframe.

I know the “attitude problem” is the wording used in the “ComGuide”, and Mike’s Goldmine interview seems to indeed indicate something along those lines. I’m very curious what those “attitude problems” consisted of. If even the less scandalous biographical descriptions of BB history are at all accurate, most of these guys seemed to have “attitude problems” at one time or another.

I’m interested in the issue raised above in another post concerning the “SIP” sessions starting as a non-BB album. Was it for certain a BB album at the time Al was “suspended?”

Also, I think some folks in the past have snarkily, sarcastically mentioned that perhaps Al had an attitude problems in part because of the material on display during the “SIP” sessions, but I actually wonder if that album might have been a factor. That is, if indeed it was a BB album by the time Al’s ‘tude was on display, was his attitude in part due to seeing that the new group album was being undertaken as essentially a Mike solo album, both in terms of songwriting as well as overall execution? The group essentially funded the album themselves, right? That’s where I would question if it was still not set in stone as a BB album by the time recording commenced, as that would have potentially been a group-funded endeavor.

I also still want to determine what had already occurred some two years prior to the “SIP” era. As I’ve mentioned many times, Peter Ames Carlin’s book mentions that an attempt to oust Al from the band was made in 1990. He doesn’t really offer any specifics or any reasoning behind this. I think I asked him about it on this board some years back and I believe he had seem some reference to this in some sort of paperwork he had seen, but I never saw any further details about this.

I’ve always assumed Mike and Al became more estranged, and in a weird slight role reversal of the 70’s situation, it was Carl who eventually sort of acquiesced and allowed Mike to take control of things, and this in turn estranged Al from Carl and Al was marginalized. (This marginalization became even stronger once Carl was gone, it would seem.) 

That was always my impression as well. Al's case is a weird one. But alas, it's the BBs.

Indeed, the great Black Hole in Beach Boys history.  I've never seen anybody really answer these questions.  Those who  have covered  this period time (be it Carlin, Stebbins, et al) seem to gloss over it in mere paragraphs with a resulting frustration to this reader. Whether that is because the author thinks this period is ultimately not interesting or they simply do not have the information I don't know...

I’ve always felt it was both. Some of the authors don’t seem to feel it was that interesting or noteworthy. I got the sense Carlin for instance didn’t really seem to be terribly overly interested in an attempt to oust a member of the band in 1990. That struck me as kind of a big deal. He did mention it in the book, but didn’t seem overly concerned.

I think Stebbins has more of an interest, especially concerning the 97/98 timeframe, as it involved Dave. But even in the Marks book, there is frustratingly little information. I sense particularly with the Stebbins/Marks book, it may have been more due to lack of detailed information being available, and/or still legal issues that couldn’t be delved into in too much detail.

I had one “insider” privately explain pretty explicitly way back in the late 90’s what the business breakdown of the tour operation was, and how changes in that setup were one of the key ingredients in the group splintering in the 1998 timeframe. But this breakdown has still never been published in detail. It’s not super complicated. It basically takes a few sentences, a short paragraph to explain. The Stebbins/Marks book comes closest, but it doesn’t get into the specific breakdown. My guess would be that is due either to lack of specific sources available to cite, and/or legal implications of getting into that much detail. That nobody has published this in explicit detail is perhaps what gives some “fans” pause to get into it as well. I dunno.

A hand, yes. All by himself... no.

Agree, and let us not forget to note the Beach Boys got a deal of some sort for Summer In Nashville (Stars/Stripes), due to the Brian/full band involvement.

Good point, and I remember when Little Deuce Coupe seemed to be the lead single the Beach Boys - all surviving members including Brian but minus David - appeared on Letterman's show doing backing vocals for the singer who did lead. And I thought...well, the performance was solid and everything, but wasn't that sort of a waste to have the freakin' Beach Boys singing backup for an up-and-coming country singer instead of having them as a band play instead? That was some of what applied to a lot of that album project, it just didn't hit the mark.

Unlike "SIP", I think the blame for the "Stars and Stripes" debacle can more easily be spread around to many or most of the members. Not surprisingly, they've rarely if ever been asked about that project after it occurred.

I think if Mike/Terry have to wear SIP, then Brian/Joe have to wear SIN. All others who appeared, I'm not sure what they were thinking.

What is SIN?

Mike Love was listed as "Executive Producer" on "Stars and Stripes" if I'm recalling correctly. I don't think he was quite just tagging along on that project.

I thought the concept of 'stars' was great, with a couple of decent tunes on there....

the weak part was the picking of 'upcoming artists' or using artists that were 'so so'....

the vocals by the 'guys' are quite great you know........ the arrangements??..... err and ahh.....

with a mainstream producer at the helm, nothing against Joe and Brian..... of someone left field like

a Jack White or Rick Rubin of the time, it could have been a great contrast.......

but Sawyer Brown, T Graham, Colin Raye, Who The F$%?  is James House.....????? really??

I guess it all comes down to the money aspect, but why not try and get the creative country artists...

I guess it's all money..... but what may have been obvious to me are........

Garth, Waylon (who use to do Sloop John in early days) , Cash (also did Sloop John), (...Willie was a good one!)...... Hank Jr,

Vince Gill (like the Brian tribute show), Dwight (who also does a 'cringeworthy' version of Sloop - youtube it).... I did like Junior Brown

BUT!, the point is a lack of creative artists combined....

even interesting watching the BB/Toby Keith segment is so boring and out of place......

if it were the Toby of 'today'........ maybe different, but he was 'green' there..... and it really shows....

not in either 'camps' favors.......

RickB

Pretty sure Stars was Mike's idea, attempting to follow what the Eagles had done -- releasing a popular country covers record, followed by a disc of original material. Brian got on board when he heard that Willie Nelson was involved.

Not anyone's finest hour, but more (to my mind) because of the generally poor quality of artists involved and the sterile backing tracks. Willie is great, as is Tim Schmidt. And Brian's newly arranged tag for the end of "Caroline, No" is one of his greatest moments of the '90s.

It really should have been a TV special rather than an album ...

Thank you for mentioning Junior Brown in that project: The year before the BB's project, he had just been breaking nationally, and after seeing him and his Guit-Steel hybrid guitar rip the place apart on Conan's show, I got a chance to see him at a relatively small club in Boston. I got there early, hung around, and had the chance to stand front-row center in front of him the entire show, I was a few feet away so I could try to figure out what the heck he was playing and how he was playing it! I looked around and noticed many workers from the various guitar shops in Boston there too, and the guy was ridiculously good and entertaining. Playing authentic, old-school country and working in Hendrix style licks, banjo rolls, crazy good lap steel, feedback, all-out jams...it was one of the best guitar nights I ever had. I was learning the songs from his albums, practicing like hell, following his TV appearances...he was really unique. A nice deep country lead voice too, throwback sound totally opposite of George Strait, Vince Gill, etc who were doing the higher sound.

Psyched as anything to see what he'd do with the Beach Boys. I can't explain how much more I thought they could have done with it and with his unique sound and talent. He was under-utilized, I didn't think the song was a good fit as they had it arranged for a short single-length cut, there was no room at all on the 2-minute long track for him to actually *play guitar* and expand beyond one lead break, and it wasn't really what I hoped for.

Put it this way: If you invite a world-class chef specifically known for making seafood dishes like no other onto a TV show to show his talents, you wouldn't expect him to make a Filet-O-Fish and fries. You get Junior Brown in the studio, let the man play his guitar. Simple.

Forget Smiley Smile, that whole project was the real bunt instead of the grand slam...more like a foul tip, but who's keeping score.

ahhh !!!  Junior Brown.......

he is a marvel to watch and listen to..... a very underappreciated guitar picker......

guys who wanna check out some 'crazy' awesome 'out of the box' guitar/slide pickin.....

check out Junior Brown's 'Semi-Crazy' album....... even has a 'surf' medley...

but the funky playin is in stuff like 'I hung it up'.... OT, sorry, but yeah his pickin magic could have

been used stronger on 'Stars'....

RickB

I always wondered how much of Al's attitude problem was that he simply was loudly disagreeing with Mike at the time and Carl stayed neutral/bowed to Mike. It is interesting to note that Al went from being suspended in 92 to basically being in control ( shared with Carl) of the 93 box set tour.

Didn't Mike and Al have control of the ship for the recording of MIU, which in my opinion was a mess.  And then to name a Beach Boys album after the Maharishi, so much for commercial instincts being important.

The single worst aspect of S&SV1 ?

"Brian ? Joe Thomas. Pleased to meet you."

In Al’s 2000 “Goldmine” interview, he does allude to this a bit. He mentions that in the 90’s he had given an interview where he criticized the cheerleaders being on stage, and says he “got in trouble” for making those comments. I would presume this to mean Mike was not happy about. Al goes on to say in the 2000 interview that eventually Mike gave in to getting rid of the cheerleaders. I’m kind of curious if Mike was really giving into pressure from other band members, or perhaps it was just a cost-cutting move.

I’m not sure how much Al and Carl had wrestled any control in doing the ’93 boxed set tour. It appears from what we know that Mike simply went along with it, essentially “letting” it happen. I’m not even sure Mike was present at all of the extra rehearsals they did for that tour. I know a rehearsal recording from Big Sur exists, and I don’t think Mike is even present.

Considering, even with their flaws, that “Imagination” and “TWGMTR” (more the latter) were markedly better than S&S, and were better than some other group projects that didn’t involve Thomas, I’d say the S&S project itself and its resulting sub-par quality are far more objectionable than the entrance of Thomas into Brian and the group’s orbit. This is especially so in light of the fact that that piece of dreck was the last thing Carl worked on with the group.

There is also a case to be made that Thomas was a key player in making the reunion album and tour happen. If those things hadn’t happened without Thomas, then I’d make an argument that introducing Brian to Thomas was ironically a good thing.

Doesn’t mean I like his production style, or his arrangement style, or, sometimes, his choice of material. I wish someone would ban Thomas from using oboes or pretty much any woodwind. 

just for the record... I don't think the Boy's cover of Crocodile Rock is really all that bad...  Personally I think Al should have sung all of it ( so tired of handoff vocals by this point), but really, what was anyone expecting with a cover of that song?.
Biggest issue I have with that whole  endeavour is that it was the wrong song.. Chameleon ( from Blue moves anyone?)

This is also covered in Jon's "FAQs" book, although exact details of the tour business arrangement that Al so vocifereously disagreed with and caused his "attitutde" are not spelled out.  Seems like Carl didn't have the will to fight  Mike at this point and he let him "have it his way" which pissed Al off.

Interesting to note how in the late 70's it was Al and Mike on one "side" and the Wilsons on the other, to the point where it's reported they traveled in separate planes, limos, etc. Then came the 90's, and beyond the obvious name rights issue, is there anything on the record for what caused the problems even before that case of Al's "family and friends" legal troubles? Some accounts say there were efforts to get Al out of the band at various times, and yet I can't remember what the specifics could have been if they were ever detailed.

And just to clarify without re-reading everything, is the naming-rights and usage agreement for the band's name and live performances exclusive, or non-exclusive...meaning someone could either apply for official permission and a "license" to use the name (which I assume could be petitioned and then voted on at the BRI level), or whoever holds that at the moment has exclusive rights and no one else can even apply for it?

It was non-exclusive for a time -- when Al toured under the BBF&F name. Brian could have theoretically toured his own BB group too, I guess. But after Al clashed with BRI over financial matters, and after the lawsuit, I believe Mike ended up with an exclusive license.

It has been debated here whether that means Mike has rights to tour with the name in perpetuity or not (that is, does the BRI board have to meet to consider whether to re-license the name to him at regular intervals), but no one seems to know. If all the BRI shareholders want to change something they clearly can (the C50 shows, for instance), but the intricacies of Mike's arrangement are a bit unclear.

Interesting - thanks for the info. Some reports suggested Al could have toured under the friends and family name if he had applied to BRI for a "license" to do so, but because he did not go through the process he lost the case. Does this sound right? It's one thing to have it be brought to a BRI vote, be rejected, but use the name anyway - But if it were just a case of petitioning BRI to use the name, since the contract(s) were non-exclusive, why didn't he just apply for it and have it come to a vote? I can't see where a band comprised of board members' children and relatives would have voted against themselves in an indirect way for the name "Beach Boys Family And Friends".

There seems to be so much more to these stories.

And is that original agreement which Mike is holding coming up for another BRI vote anytime soon?

It seems it was that Al did not want to pay the rate that BRI was asking for to use the name.

I plead ignorance on this, which is why I'm asking: How many final votes are there for the major board decisions at BRI, and who has those final votes?

We’ve heard from more than one source now that, according to their sources, there has never been another vote held concerning Mike’s license since the original vote to the grant the license that took place circa 1998.

We don’t know if it’s in perpetuity, but I don’t think it’s a huge leap to assume it’s likely that they left it open-ended, likely a case of granting the license in perpetuity until or if a specific set of criteria occurs (e.g. they hold a new vote to change the license, or due to death, or if terms of the license are violated, etc.). There would probably have to be all sorts of clauses written to cover various scenarios. For instance, even if BRI could hold a vote tomorrow to change who has the license, I would imagine they would have to have a contingency in place to deal with shows that have already been booked and sold as “Beach Boys” shows. They would probably have to set a future date as a cut-off date, etc. This is all just conjecture for curiosity’s sake, as this scenario is highly unlikely.

For Mike's license to be, for want of a better term, "revoked", it would (presumably) require a majority vote by the executive BRI members and, as stated frequently before by myself and others, it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity. Thus the vote is locked at 2-2. Status quo endures.

The only other scenario I can conjure that would result in Mike loosing the license (other than, well, the obvious...) would be if he failed, repeatedly and conspicuously, to adhere to the terms of said license. Somehow, I don't see that happening any time soon.

The executive shareholders of BRI are:

Brian Wilson
Alan Jardine
Mike Love
the estate of Carl Wilson.

To the best of the knowledge of most fans, the four voting members of BRI are Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl’s estate.

However, I’m not sure we all know for certain if there aren’t other board members that may have “votes.” I’m not a business/business law expert, but I think incorporated companies that aren’t publicly traded can still have additional private shareholders and/or board members.

I have a vague recollection that I’ve seen vague references from various Beach Boys in interviews to “board members” or “shareholders” that at least seemed to imply people beyond the four principals listed above.

Thank you for that info. I wasn't sure if a part of Dennis' estate was involved in the votes.

Best of my knowledge, those are the only four voting members. Bruce handed his vote back a long time ago, and Dennis' estate sold his back to BRI in return for a reduction in his debts, or so I've been told.

Brings up another point: With four votes, what or who acts as the tiebreaker? Depending on the issue being voted, a deadlocked 2-2 tie would need to be broken, right?

Yes, the “FAQ” book also makes mention of this. But the specific details I was talking about have never been published as far as I know, nor related (in specifics) on boards, etc.

Also worth clarification is that the situation/era I’m talking about is prior to Al and Carl being gone from the band. This would be, I presume, in the mid 90’s, perhaps 1996 or so, give or take. What I’m talking about is completely separate (though not perhaps totally unrelated) from the 1998-1999 “license” issues and subsequent lawsuits and whatnot.

Nope - vote tied, nothing changes. Unsatisfactory in the extreme, especially in this case, but that's how it goes. Bit like boxing: bout is tied, champ retains his title.

Why did Bruce hand over his vote?

Can someone with some business expertise chime in? Is it possible for a privately-held company, or its shareholders, to sell/assign shares to another person? I believe shares of privately-held (non-publicly traded) companies can be sold under certain circumstances. Is it possible in any scenario that BRI could have other shareholders and/or voting board members? I’m just curious if there are other people that have a say in BRI votes. Not other Beach Boys or anybody we would possibly know, but other business associates, etc. I have no knowledge of this or reason to believe this is the case with BRI, I’m just curious if it’s possible.

No reason why they can't. Though, selling/buying shares and having voting rights are 2 entirely different things.

I'm wondering if there is a scenario where there could be others with voting rights.

My thinking is, if there were, we'd have heard about it by now.

I would tend to agree. But we have very little direct sources of information on the actual intricate machinations of BRI, especially these days. I'm just curious about other scenarios. Maybe when/if the band members seem to be talking about other non-BB's even they talk about their board, etc., they perhaps are just talking about lawyers and other proxies/associates.

Possibly Elliott Lott?

I know that in Queen, there were originally (obviously) four voting members. Then Freddie Mercury died, and made their manager, Jim Beach, the executor of his estate. That means Jim ended up with Freddie's vote in the band. Brian May and Roger Taylor still have theirs, and John Deacon is retired and no longer votes. So in that situation, the manager essentially breaks any ties in the group.

I'm assuming when he left the group in the 70s.

But this can't be right, can it? Given that there was the experiment with non-exclusive licenses? I can't imagine that BRI would want that option around these days. There was a link to the actual ruling against Al that has been floating around that had a breakdown of what happened legally at the time ...

Edit. Found it. No further meetings mentioned, although I fail to see how Mike's license is "non-exclusive" these days ...


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

Interesting question. I'm guessing the last vote that took place, perhaps in 1999 rather than 98, was the one that granted one exclusive license. I'm not even sure if that particular vote is detailed in all the court paperwork we've seen. But that's the "last vote" I've assumed others have referred to.

My recollection is that the non-exclusive licenses had a set expiration date, perhaps December 98 or very early in 1999. Once the non-exclusive license expired, Love was the only one to apply for an exclusive license which was granted by BRI. I do not ever recall seeing an exact term (dates) for the exclusive license. Interesting to note that in the summary of court proceedings quoted above, at least as late as 1998 there were still only 4 voting board members of BRI, one of which was Jardine. This would lead one to believe that we would still have Al, Mike, Brian and Carl's estate as the voting members of BRI.

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  Case in point, BRI issued a license for the C50 reunion. Evidence being Mike's complaints about lack of control. If the reunion had been under Mike's license, he would have called all the shots.

The C50 tour was a very different thing I believe and was all about Mike, Brian and Joe Thomas. I don`t think Al`s opinion was very important on the matter.

All of the comments over the years, including those from Melinda, indicate that Mike`s licence is exclusive.

I seem to recall that initially Al (prior to the formation of BRI) and later Bruce were not voting members.

When was Al added as a voting member?

Assuming BRI was formed in 1967 (please correct me if I'm wrong), the voting members at that time would have been Brian, Mike, Dennis, Carl, and Al.

When was Bruce added?  Are we absolutely certain that he was, in fact, a voting member for a period of time?

If Bruce gave up his vote when he left the group in 1972, what did he receive in consideration for doing so?

This would be interesting if true but it would not seem to give much time at all for them to arrange any touring.

Commonsense tells you Mike's license is exclusive: if it were not, Alan would be playing his shows as The Beach Boys as well, wouldn't he ? The reunion was a one-off exception that all factions agreed to.

Mike was touring on and off through 1998. A couple shows around May of 1998 were actually done with Al, presumably still billed as "The Beach Boys." Later shows in 1998 with Mike, Bruce, and David were apparently booked as something like "America's Band." They apparently didn't get a ton of bookings under this name (no surprise). They were also doing some private shows during this time as well. There's that pro-shot video from around May of 1998 done for Toyota. Al is gone, but Matt Jardine is still in the band. Dunno if they called that show "The Beach Boys", but Bruce flashes a "Beach Boys" t-shirt at one point if I'm recalling correctly.

But by later 1998, I think Mike already had his non-exclusive license and was booking shows as usual under the BB name. The touring band was up and running pretty much the whole time. I'm sure 1999 dates were already being booked in 1998. I don't think Mike was ever in danger of losing the license (or of not being able to renew it). There was only a question in the short term as to whether others would also get a license.

I don't think non-exclusive licenses actually being executed with multiple parties would have worked. Carl's estate's idea got a 3-to-1 vote. Should we guess that Mike was the "no" vote? I think that voting situation would have changed at some point, as Mike's band continued the steady revenue stream.

It also wouldn't have worked logistically to have multiple bands out there touring as simply "The Beach Boys." Even Al's "BBFF" moniker caused confusion. I don't think the other BRI members would have signed on to that for very long.

As another aside, I've also heard from sources quite some time back that, back in 1998/99, there was leverage asserted to gain the votes to get the exclusive license that we aren't aware of. Hate to be so vague, but that bit of info did seem to give a much more full explanation for why they all voted the way they did than simply "they want their easy paycheck from the licensing fees."

Personally I would say that if they were raking in the $$$ then they probably would have been happy to keep it going. It is a moot point anyway as Al couldn`t agree to the terms of the licence he was being offered.

This also gets into whether a license is exclusive in that nobody else has currently been given one, or exclusive in that nobody can possibly even attempt to get one.

Mike's license could be "non-exclusive" in that the option for others to ask for one is still there, however far-fetched. But BRI simply being open to additional licenses of some sort wouldn't immediately give Al or anyone else the right to start using the name. It would simply allow others to seek out and/or be granted another license.

I've also mentioned this to AGD and others several times, but I still cannot find the court documents that I recall made mention of a later reference to the license. I think it was one of those mid-2000's lawsuits between Mike and Brian (and/or others). One of the documents made mention that at some point Brian, or his "camp", made a specific mention that under certain circumstances, they would entertain going out with Al Jardine and moving to take the license back and tour as "The Beach Boys." I recall thinking it was probably an empty thing to lob, but it was interesting in that it was on the only instance I've seen where someone suggested Brian ever made a move to even consider "taking the license back." I don't think my memory could have made something up so elaborate. I'm open to the possibility I'm misremembering, but I don't think that's most likely.

I've always been interested to know whether the license for Al that was proposed by either side made specific mention of only touring as "BBFF." To me, that's not as valuable of a license as "The Beach Boys." I would tend to think this had to have been outlined. That's perhaps why Al wanted to pay a smaller fee. Why would Al obtain and pay for a license to use the full BB name, but then use the "BBFF" name?

Was Carl's estate seriously thinking that it would work to have two or three different bands all using the same exact name? That would have been nuts.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Semantics.  BRI could issue Al a license to tour as "A TRIBUTE TO THE BEACH BOYS STARRING AL JARDINE". Al would have to pay BRI the same % as Mike does The court docs specically say Mike's license is non-exclusive.

Could BRI license Al to tour as "The Beach Boys featuring Al Jardine  " ? Yes. But due to Mike litigious nature/history, BRI isn't going to do that.

The little legal squirmish last year went whole unnoticed when Brian, David and Al wanted to start billing themselves as "Original Beach Boys ". Mike's lawyers objected but backed down after some back ad forth. Case law is pretty clear that you can bill youself as such as long as that billing does not insinuate it is the band itself  playing.

Didn't somebody do the math on what Carl's estate would receive and it turned out to be not a whole lot of money? (In BBs world)

The first gig as the BRI-sanctioned Beach Boys was July 4th 1998, at Trump Marina Casino, Atlantic City NJ. The legalistics were signed off the previous day: prior to that, except at private shows, the band were billed as the "California Beach Band" from 1/9/98 (oddly, a goodly number of these shows didn't include Bruce), or occasionally as"Mike Love & The California Beach Boys" (almost exclusively overseas). Despite the widespread belief, they were never officially billed as "America's Band": the official billing at the SuperBowl XXXII pre-game show was "A Tribute To The Beach Boys Featuring Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, David Marks, Glen Campbell, Dean Torrance, and John Stamos". Just rolls off the tongue, don't it ?  ;D

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

The M&B show would have to clear in excess of 4M for each BRI member (excluding Mike) to make $200,000

That was  me. Used CA and Federal tax rates, Mike's court statements on his tour revenue and expenses.

Weren't there two versions of Yes going around at one point? ...... I know one was calling themselves "Yes West"

The BRI license should just be open game for these guys .... How much money do they need and how could an Al "Beach Boys" really take profits away from Brian or "The Bruce Boys"? ..... A little bit of coordination would be all it would take ..... I mean unless Brian's Beach Boys (with or without Al) and The Bruce Boys both accidentally book Nutty Jerry's for the same night or something.

But wouldn't it be great if one were to stumble into SeaWorld and "The Beach Boys: Featuring Brian Wilson" were playing the outdoor theater, The Bruce Boys were playing a iron cage in the shark tank, and Al's Beach Boys were playing the kiddie pool?

It's there in black & white: Alan decided he didn't need a BRI approved license, exclusive or non- and tried to get away with paying a lot less than the sums required by BRI. He soon found out he was wrong. it was BRI who sued him, not Mike (and yes, as Alan is a voting member of BRI he was indeed technically suing himself !). As he has several times in the past, Alan engineered his own problem here. The situation back then was very straightforward: play by the rules and pay us what the license says, you can bill yourself as "The Beach Boys". Try to pull a fast one, we will sue your ass, and in this case "we" included Brian & Carl's estate as well as Mike, under the BRI mantle.

And yes, Mike's license was non-exclusive - then. It's been exclusive, i.e. only he can tour as The Beach Boys, for many years.

Ugh, put my post in the quote box...

Based on figures that are at least 10 years old.

It would be interesting again to see for sure that there were no later rulings that showed that Mike was given an exclusive licence...

Al wouldn`t have to pay the same % as Mike does if the past is anything to go by anyway as BRI requested 17.5% when he wanted to tour as BB F&F.

And I`m not sure `Mike`s litigious nature` would have much to do with it. If the licence is non-exclusive still then Al would simply need a 3-1 vote to go out touring using the BBs name in some form. Mike would have to sue BRI to try to stop it and we all know how much success Al had when he tried to sue BRI back in the day...

A very nice piece of pie.

Even if that number is accurate, for Carl`s estate to get a couple of million dollars for doing nothing since M&B started touring together isn`t to be sniffed at.

No, the C50 isn`t proof at all. We all know that if Mike had stated, `My band or it`s not going to happen` then it wouldn`t have happened.

It's probably not an unreasonable guess that the touring band is not pulling in like five or ten times more revenue in 2014 than they were in 2004, adjusted for inflation and whatnot.

Also, while sources have indicated no vote concerning assigning the license have taken place, do we know for certain that no terms of any kind have been changed. Could the percentage have been renegotiated?

Bottom line, that licensing fee is a nice chunk of change to most anybody, and certainly nice for not doing anything. But it's also not the huge fortune some in past years have seemed to paint it as.

BRI is a corporation.  It was all done via licensing and contracts.  The C50 license gave Joe Thomas a lot of power, including the live album he botched up. Mike kinda had no choice because BRI issued the license for the C50. You argue my point. The C50 license was a  negotiated deal. If Mike had an  exclusive license, he would have  had ALL the power in dictating the C50 tour. But his license is non eexclusive so they all negotiated something.

The lawsuits back in 1999-ish seemed to strongly imply that Al going out as even "BBFF" was taking profits away and confusing people. They were hunting down people that attended the February 1999 Strawberry Festival gigs trying to find people who felt they had been duped by Al's band, etc.

That's why the idea that BRI was offering "non-exclusive" licenses to all at any point seems weird. BRI argued in court that having more than one band with even variations on the name was confusing the marketplace.

Very true.  Revenue might have doubled.  Mike is a touring machine. And I bet he is responsible for selling a lot of CDs and T shirts.

It is interesting to note that there must have been some genuine confusion as to whether Al had a valid license in 1999. He was able to tour through most of 1999 as "BBFF." I'm guessing it wasn't until Mike got an "exclusive" license that they were able to get the courts to grant an injunction against him.

I only point this out to suggest that, if the courts were unsure as to whether Al had a valid license during some or most of 1999, then he may not have been actively engineering his own demise so much as being eventually shot down by the exclusive license.

No. Just no.  :)

Mike kinda had no choice? Of course he did as proved by the fact that the tour ended and he is back using The Beach Boys name.

No, Mike would not have had ALL the power because Brian`s management would never have agreed to it.

Your theory only works if a Beach Boys tour can occur without Mike wanting it to happen. Mike wanted the C50 tour to occur.

Once more, for Gregg's especial benefit seeing as he's currently hard of comprehending: Mike's license to tour as "The Beach Boys" is exclusive and has been for a good few years. Just because you've not seen any documentation saying so doesn't mean it isn't so. The C50 tour was an exceptional circumstance for which the "Love License" was temporarily suspended for a set and agreed term.

It matters not much, but I'm assuming licensed merchandise is handled differently. Usually, companies make that stuff by licensing the trademark from BRI. I would imagine Mike's touring operation simply acts as a vendor of the merchandise. I could be wrong. They may make it in-house or order it in-house and incorporate it directly into touring revenue.

I suppose a more nuanced way of saying it might be that in terms of touring a full reunited group, Mike did not have all the power.

But in terms of touring as "The Beach Boys", and/or being able to fall back on that if anything else ends or falls through, Mike does have pretty much all the power (aside from new BRI corporate votes). This is the very power he wielded in going back to his own thing in 2012.

I think that`s partly because he was using different booking agents to the ones that were demanded but mainly just because he wasn`t paying any money to BRI. If the groups had been playing in different parts of the country or even the world and Al had been paying the required $$$ then I doubt Carl`s estate would have had an issue with things.

nm

If some promoter offered Brian and Al $100 million to tour as the Beach Boys for 40 shows, a license would be issued.  But that isn't going to happen. BRI is a corporation that does what is in the besst financial interests of BRI.

Right now, that is Mike's touring Beach Boys. If it were more lucrative to have two bands, they would do it. But it isn't.  Confusion in the marketplace, bad press, it would drive down attendence overall I expect.

What is this based on though?

Ignoring the undeniable fact that no promoter in their right mind would do anything so stupid, no, a license would not be issued just like that: there would be a special meeting of BRI shareholders, called presumably by Brian and/or Alan, there would be (doubtless heated) debate and a vote would be taken. That's why BRI is a corporation and not the musical equivalent of a dictatorship. Gregg seems to inhabit a world where, if he wants something to happen, why, Shazaam ! - it happens ! If only... if only... so many things would be so very different.  :)

That, or he has inside knowledge of the corporate workings of BRI that puts the rest of our feeble assumptions to utter shame.  :old

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive. Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.
 
This may help enlighten you: http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

I can understand these kind of business concepts, legalese, corporate issues are beyond your normal sphere of knowledge. Not having to do with recording dates, horse races and such.

I seem to have as much inner knowledge of BRI as you do Andy. I believe it was you, on the BBB Board, who was offering to take bets that Al was playing with Mike after a poster stated the contrary. Would think you, of all people, would know better.

Edit: Here is your post, " Re(7): Al Jardine not appearing 7/5
Posted on June 10, 2014 at 19:26:53 by AGD

Let's wait and see who shows on the 5th. I'm willing to wager a small sum that Alan will be there. Of course, I don't have any such high-placed sources.

Or do I...  :) "

Obviously, you don't. But atleast you figured how to spell my name correctly Andy. Bravo!  ;D

This is a genuine question, but can you give a link to a recent legal document or ruling stating that the licence is non-exclusive? I think another poster asked earlier but it would help to clarify things...

AGD certainly isn`t the only one who has stated that Mike does have an exclusive licence though. It has been printed numerous times in the past.

The C50 tour certainly isn`t proof of what you are saying on its own.

And the comments about horse racing don`t really add anything do they?

I put all those links in the last thread where this was all  previously hashed out. As Andy likes to say, the board has a search function.

PS - I love to talk horse racing.   ;D

Would that be the same thread where you said that Brian and Al were going to vote to take away the licence from Mike and could make a fortune touring as the BBs themselves?  ;)

A few points stand out, if I could describe them.

First - It's old ground, kicking the dead horse, et al...But the very issue, in fact what may be the main issue behind the "exclusive" naming rights that involved Al getting taken to court caused more confusion in 2012 for some venues and booking issues than I think was even a pressing issue with people buying tickets to one of Al's Family & Friends shows and thinking they were seeing the full Beach Boys or something. Yet from the advertising and listings in the wake of C50, there was some confusion there which was even reposted and discussed here, to the point where some venues were using the 50th promo photos to incorrectly bill a show. Place blame accordingly. I don't like the term "ironic", but doesn't that apply here?  ;D

Second - Others have described the way BRI gets compensated for these various shows and the revenue they generate. It seems a pretty fair split that everyone agrees on, if you use the name you split up some of the revenue with BRI, just like any license or franchise.

Now if Al, let's say, were to hypothetically start billing a tour again as "Al Jardine of The Beach Boys", or even if David Marks were to do a tour as "Original Beach Boy David Marks" or whatever other incarnations could be thought of...First, do we really think fans would be confused as to who or what they were buying tickets to see? Second, if it's bringing revenue into BRI's coffers, no matter how big or small the tour and as long as there is at least one legitimate band member who can be called an original Beach Boy, why would that be objectionable to have even more revenue generated for the corporate interest and the board members who share the take?

We could flip the scenario and suggest Mike could be collecting revenue from Al's touring while still doing his own tours, I seriously doubt there would be fans confused about who they were buying tickets to see...how would that be objectionable if it's mainly an issue of finances? (Understand I realize the issue originally involved how much the F&F tour was going to split with BRI or pay BRI, but still...)

If... and if my mother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. Hasn't been any such vote - i.e. to offer anyone except Mike a license - for close on 15 years, nor will there be.


You think I'd be dumb enough to incorrectly state that as fact, knowing who's monitoring this forum ? Those documents are close on 15 years old and refer to Alan's attempt to twostep sidestep paying BRI a reasonable licensing fee. Things have moved on since then. And care to cite your source that another license was issued for 2012 by BRI ? First I've heard of it. Like I said, in your world just wanting something to happen makes it... happen. Maybe you should try applying it to another scenario.  ;D

LA Times, 10/5/12: "“The name ‘The Beach Boys’ is controlled by Brother Records Inc., which was founded by the original members of the Beach Boys and whose sole shareholders voted over a decade ago to grant me an exclusive license to tour as ‘The Beach Boys.’”"

Says so in Stebbins' book too, so it must be true. No-one's stood up and said "no, it's not" and lest we forget, The Beach Boys can be very litigious people.

To explain - apparently because I earn my crust working as a bookmaker (William Hill, since you asked), that makes me one who trades in human misery, not to mention directly responsible for the (alleged) fact that Gregg's uncle blew the family fortune down at the racetrack one day. That's a pretty fair example of his level of reasoned argument.  ::)

I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license". Your quote of Stebbins is laughable.  It doesn't say Sole, or Exclusive. As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argueement! I have seen Mike's license framed a dozen different ways in print. Many erroneously even state Mike owns th name.

Just because Mike has the only license at the moment doesn't make it exclusive. That not so subtle distinction seems beyond the grasp.

A clear reference to your promotion of the M/B UK shows following horse raises. Me thinks you are hypersensitive about your profession. Seeing you suffer such angst over it, maybe you should try a new profession.  Maybe go get your BA, then MBA, and learn about how corporations work, licensing and such things.  ;D

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Again though, can you post a link to a recent statement or court ruling?

I don`t think anyone denies that in 1998 Mike was issued with a non-exclusive licence but it would be interesting to see more recent court documents stating that nothing changed afterwards.

I guess you weren't able to figure out the search function. You don't PM, can't use the search function, and apparently,  can't use Google.

I was just reviewing that old thread. Funny,  back then, given links, you continued to argue and argue. Like a broken record. Believe what you want Nicko.

Didn't delve - you told me.  ;D

Via PM. Bad, bad boy. But you did delve, as you well know!

Regarding your documentation claiming to prove Mike's license is non-exclusive, it does nothing of the sort, as it all refers to the original 1998 case and it's (considerable) fallout. The later awarding Mike of an exclusive license isn't so much as alluded to in the papers because, understandably, it has nothing to do with the original plaint as brought by Alan. To bring it down to a basic level, it doesn't say Mike has an exclusive license but neither does it say he hasn't, because it has no relevance to the case in question, viz., Alan's attempt to evade playing BRI the sums required for a non-exclusive license as proposed in late 1998. I note you've avoided commenting on Mike's own statement, in the LA Times no less, that in 2012 he'd had an exclusive license for over a decade. In his reply, Brian contested several of Mike's statements, but having an exclusive license wasn't one of them.

"I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license"."

Yes, they surely do - in every single case, in reference to the 1998 agreement:

"In 1998, BRI issued a non-exclusive license to Michael Love, an original member of The Beach Boys, to use the band's trademark." (432 F. 3d 939 - Brother Records Inc v. Jardine, Filed December 19, 2005 - note, BRI, not Mike Love)

"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”)." (Brother Records v Jardine, No. 01-57095. Decided: January 28, 2003)

This one, also from the document quoted above, is especially interesting (emphasis mine): "The district court concluded that Jardine raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Jardine had a non-exclusive license, which expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999" So, any and all non-exclusive license issued by BRI in fall 1998 automatically ended by the end of the next year. That BRI then proceeded to take legal action against Alan in January and March of 2000 to prevent him using the BB name in his bands and advertising could be taken as an indication that Mike's exclusive license was granted in early 2000.

Or not, but the fact is, Mike has an exclusive license and has for some years.  ::)

So you went back over an old thread and couldn`t be bothered to simply copy and paste the documents here? It`s not about what I want to believe. After all, whether Mike`s licence is exclusive or not reflects neither positively or negatively on any of the members. I would be genuinely interested if the often mentioned statement that Mike`s licence is exclusive is shown to be false.

If we are talking about the same thread then the only arguments I can remember making were that Mike pays 20% for the use of the name (which you initially refused to believe) and that Brian and Al were not about to revoke Mike`s licence to tour as The Beach Boys themselves. Not sure you can dispute either of those things now.

There you go, December 31, 1999.  I knew the non-exclusive licenses had a set date upon which they expired, just couldn't recall the exact date.

It said Al's license expired, not Mike's. If Mike had an exclusive license,  that would have been a slam dunk argument that Mike'-s attorneys suely would have made a motion on. They did not. That is why the Courts SOLEY refers to Mike's non exclusuve license. Even in the 2003 rulings.

Anyway Andy, I am done beating this dead horse for you and Nicko. If you can  come up with definitive proof that you a newer, exclusive license was issued, do share it. All you offer is speculation.  :deadhorse

Meaning that you can`t prove that it wasn`t? Just post the proof and it ends any debate.

Said nothing of the sort, if you care to read it properly. The document stated a triable issue was raised as to whether or not Alan ever had any such license, then described the terms of said license. All the non-exclusive licenses issued (like, one, to Mike) expired 12/31/99. That was the whole crux of the suit - Alan maintained he didn't need a "Love License" to use the marquee name while touring, BRI begged to differ. Serious legal sh*t ensued, which wasn't totally settled for quite a few years.

As for the issuing of an exclusive license, I tend to believe the three different people who told me. People who would surely know.  ;D

And finally...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Chief_Joseph-1877.jpg)

Just a reminder. A very wise, eloquent man.

Ouch!

Rule 5.5

ORR actually posted this information about his uncle on the message board for everyone to see a long time ago. If he`s trying to get AGD banned now then it is pretty poor form.

Unless I'm mistaken (and maybe I am), it doesn't seem that Alan's ejection from the band in 1998 has ever really been publicly addressed by Mike at any point since it happened, am I correct? I know that post C50, Mike has repeatedly said "Al is doing his thing...", but what was Mike's official response/position in 1998/1999 when Al suddenly stopped being part of "The Beach Boys", and this was a recent development? Was this ever asked of Mike (or of Alan) in an interview at the time?

Mike did make a comment to Peter Ames Carlin about Al trying to organize his own symphonic tour with Brian and Peter Cetera:

"Love reserves most of his current animosity for the other living original Beach Boy, Al Jardine, who he alleges tried to orchestrate a Beach Boys symphonic tour with Peter Cetera and Brian – but without Mike – the week Carl Wilson died from lung cancer in 1998. There's a snide quality in his voice but still no real sense of anger. "Carl was always the mediator in The Beach Boys, so his absence created a very big void. I didn't feel like continuing with Al after that,  so that launched the whole thing where Al went off and did his own thing and I did mine with Bruce. It definitely created a schism which has lasted to this day. Alan has repeatedly brought lawsuits against Brother Records. But we've been successful at defending ourselves and so his antagonistic approach hasn't gotten him anywhere."

Obviously this isn`t the whole truth though.

"What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

Francis Bacon, The Essays: Of Truth (1625)

No, he's not - you're drawing that conclusion yourself  :P

Well if it had been true that AGD had posted information from a private message then that would presumably have been the outcome.

So Mike gets to complain about another member of the band organizing a 1998 BB-related project without his (Mike's) involvement, and Mike gets to have animosity against Al over it... but it's ok when he does essentially the same thing 14 years later (and Mike continually reminds the press until the end of time that nobody else is allowed to have an ounce of animosity when he himself does it). Riiiight.

Social disagreements aside it's an interesting argument.

Way past my bedtime plus I'm having a severe attack of accelerated dimness... I can't figure out what you're referring to. Kindly enlighten a slightly befuddled old man, please.  :old

I realize that it's somewhat of an apples/oranges thing, with 2 sets of circumstances ('98 vs '12).... but that said, the way I see it is that Mike seemed to be butt-hurt (and rightfully so) that Al was trying to organize some BB stuff without Mike's involvement. Mike in 2012 goes ahead and starts booking shows and planning an escape from his stripped-from-being-the-sole-head-honcho C50 role... even if he somehow can justify a "right" to be doing so, there's clearly several BB members who (despite prior statements to the contrary), now want to talk things through and renegotiate where things are heading.  

Anyhow, it comes down to the feeling of a BB member feeling left out, possibly conspired against, or at the very least feeling that wheels are in motion for activities under the BB name/banner in some fashion that said BB member has not been invited to. I'm sure it's not a cool feeling.

So it's established that Mike apparently felt it was lame of Al to make maneuvers in 1998 for a Mike-less symphonic tour with Brian and Peter Cetera, right? I'd think he'd realize there are a few similarities to Mike's own actions 14 years later, but there doesn't seem to be any self-awareness of this. And he never stops reminding the world that nobody who feels hurt by his 2012 actions has any morsel of a right to feel hurt by his 2012 actions.  That's the latter-day centerpiece of every. single. interview.

I'd have more relative respect if he just owned up to hurting others, and said "sorry, but I wanted to have my way again irregardless of what other people had in mind, and that's just the way it is". That's self-centered, but at least honest. I like the dude's music, but to put it mildly, his blatant hypocrisy bugs me to no end.  Unless there's some giant flaw in my logic (and I'm all ears if someone thinks there is), let's just all agree that this represents some pretty blatant hypocrisy on a general level.

Ah, understand. Thing is, Alan was apparently doing his thing on the sly (please correct if I'm libeling him, it's 6.10am here and the tea's not kicked in yet) while Mike had the written agreement of the rest of the band to book shows with the BRI-sanctioned band post C50, and they knew about it (as noted in Rolling Stone).

There are currently three things in the BB world that, assuming I ever had one, I would sell my mortal soul to the Devil to gain access to:

- the files of AFM Local 47...
- the files of the LA chapter of AFTRA (for the vocal sessions)...
- the email correspondence between the C50 principals, June to October 2012.

A fully functional TARDIS would also be useful.  :)

Sounds like the problem in 2012 could well have been that they *weren’t* e-mailing each other as much as they should have been.

As for that Peter Cetera tour situation, I always got the sense that was much more an idea/pipe dream from Al. Kind of like the 2012 Charlie Rose interview where he suggests touring every other year. Or bringing up recording “Waves of Love” with the group. Al has ideas, sometimes grandiose, and sometimes it appears nobody else in the figurative or literal room is paying much attention. I think it’s a bit telling that that Rolling Stone article depicts Al being pretty flatly rejected by Brian in trying to record “Waves of Love”, but we never saw Al get all butt-hurt about it in subsequent interviews, during or after the reunion. I think the co-writer of the song, Larry Dvoskin, on the other hand, seemed quite butt-hurt about it and stated that, interestingly, he blamed Mike for blocking Al and Bruce songs from the album. However absurd it may have been, he offered one of the more hilarious quotes of recent times on that situation: “Mike 1000% c*ck blocked Al Jardine & Bruce from having any of their songs on the record out of self interest.” I had not previously seen Mike (or anybody!) accused of “c*ck blocking” a song before.   :lol

But I digress. Al mentioned the “symphonic tour” idea in the 2000 Goldmine interview. He of course didn’t mention not including Mike. But it’s a bit rich for Mike to be outraged even if Al was working on something without Mike. The Stebbins/Marks book suggests that *prior* to Mike’s own stated timeline regarding Al attempting that Cetera tour, there were already moves afoot to edge Al out of the band. If Al did actually try to engineer a “Beach Boys” tour without Mike around this time, he was simply doing what Mike had already started to do. Difference was, as per the usual, Al had less clout/power/leverage to actually accomplish anything like that.

At this point the TARDIS would appear to be the most attainable of those items.  ;D

My list is more media-centric: The late-66, early-67 Sony Porta-Pak video footage featuring Brian and the Smile crew doing talk shows and skits, and of course the unused Inside Pop footage, late '66.

Even then, I have a better chance of getting a TARDIS than that film footage.

I cannot imagine that Brian would have felt hurt enough to publicly make multiple C50-breakdown related statements (pertaining to the fired feeling - I reiterate, the "feeling" of being in such a situation, even after having changed his mind) if he hadn't felt that there was some scheming going on behind his back by Mike. Or at least Mike simply ignoring/stonewalling any discussions that were desired from a certain point in C50. Something happened, but we just don't know the details.

And Mike/Bruce's absence at the farewell dinner just further seems to confirm - there had to have been some stuff that Brian and his people wanted to discuss, wanted to negotiate, etc... and they were denied, shut out by Mike in some way - in other words, Mike had to have made some maneuvers (the details of which we may never know) in a way that felt backhanded to Brian, despite Mike having signatures "allowing" him to do so. Somewhere along the way, Mike consulted with lawyers, who told him he can legally proceed with returning to the M&B show, and Mike made the conscious decision at some point thereafter that he would ignore any resistance from the other BBs to this plan, even though there was now resistance/questions brewing.   If that isn't a  passive aggressive "f-you", I don't quite know what is.

While it's not identical, I'm just saying that in general it seems similar to what Mike experienced (and Mike felt totally justified in complaining about) from Al's 1998 actions. The situations may have been different, but there had to have been similar feelings of a BB feeling "shut out" to other "BB" activity. Whether or not Mike had papers based on BW's previous agreeing to such terms that "allowed" Mike to get away with it is not particularly relevant to the point I'm making. For Mike to absolve himself from any responsibility as he wants to do, he'd have to have been a person who has never changed his mind about a single given situation (that he at one point agreed to) during his entire life. I think fans would be able to "take" Mike's behavior if he just owns it.

Chances are I'm missing something, but as I recall, Brian made just the one post-C50 statement, in the LA Times in response to Mike's letter a few days earlier. I'm pretty sure every other item just quoted that. May be wrong of course and if so, welcome correction.

Brian was quoted in the recent July 18th, 2014 Rolling Stone article:

Brian Wilson was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when Mike Love pulled the plug on the group's 2012 reunion tour. "It was a shock," Wilson says. "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended."

For a while, Wilson let the music go: "I was writing for the Boys, so I thought, 'What am I gonna do without them?'"

I stand duly corrected, and thank you.

Ah... wait... isn't that the Jason Fine article ?

Yep! However biased the guy's reports may be, Brian did say those words though.

Okay, just to make clear that the mods take this seriously, we looked into it.... Posted publically last December.


Case closed, no rules were broken. But I do want to say 2 more things, before we go back on topic.

1. If you have a suspicion that a boardrule is broken, because of publically posting PM stuff, make VERY sure that that's the case. If you're right, then - yes - the accused one has a big problem. But if the accusation is false, but we did take action on it (a.i. we banned someone)... and we find out later on, the accuser has a big problem (plus we will undo the other ban of course).

2. Specifically for ORR and AGD: I have advised this before, and I'll say it again: please avoid each other or stop discussing with each other, when you notice that it's going the wrong direction. You both have the talent, to bring out the worst in eachother, each of you in your own unique way. And it's not necessary, nor is it fun to watch. And I don't want to see it happen that one (or both) of you end up being banned during a similar future discussion.

Thanks for looking into that Klasse: I may be many things but I'm not dumb enough to make the contents of a PM public. And yes, you're right, it's unseemly and I'm done with Gregg after making this last observation: the only reason he responded to my mention of his uncle was, pretty obviously, to try and get me banned, to which end he lied by alleging I could only know about that via a PM he sent me (I can't recall one but given my memory, it's entirely possible). I'm guessing he currently has a pretty big problem, huh ?

There. Done and dusted. Shooting fish in a barrel gets tedious after a while, even for me. Onwards and upwards... to infinity and beyond... your mileage may vary... honi soit qui mal y pense... something like that.  ;D

The problem continually is Doe, as evidenced above, is the first one to initiate the personal,  sarcastic, insulting posts. To respond, he goes nasty indignant. To dredge up my Uncle' s misfortune,  whether from a post or PM, is stooping to a juvenile level. What has it to do with Mike's license?  (Which, by the way, is stated in each and every Court ruling up thru 2006 as non-exclusive)

His assumptions and worries about being banned are his issues of his own making, not mine. On a  more serious issue, I will PM you.

Yes, you have told us to avoid each other, but as usual, Doe dove in first by arguing with me. I have as much right to post as he does. If he chooses to start a debate on  my posts, that his issue. One you should be taking up with him. I will defend my rught to express my opinion. The problem frequently here is, certain people cannot debate without being argumentative.

I would be agreeable that the next time one posts an argument against the other, it is a strike/suspension. Courrse, I have never been suspended so this worries me not.

And why you are at it Klasse, the same warning should go out to Nicko. He was suspended for posting a PM from me and obviously holds a grudge (based on his tedious,  argumentative posts). End of rant. Peace- Gregg/ORR

I don`t hold any grudge at all. I mistakenly posted a PM yonks ago as I foolishly didn`t know there was a rule against it and so I was rightly banned for a week. It ended there.

The only question I have asked in this thread is for you to post links to any recent information as to the terms of the licence. Entirely on topic and something you have chosen not to do for whatever reason.

And the reason why I stated that AGD had not posted a PM as you accused him of? Well firstly because he contributes a lot of good, factual information on this board so it would be a shame for him to be banned, but more importantly perhaps, because what you were saying wasn`t true. I thought I vaguely recalled reading it on the board in the past and it took about 10 seconds using the search function to locate the same thread that SMiLE Holland linked to below.

Now in that same thread you implied repeatedly that you wanted AGD banned and I`m sure you knew what you were doing when you alleged that he had quoted one of your PMs here. I don`t think you can really complain that I set the facts straight.

I`m sure the mods have enough to do without dealing with this stuff so why not get this thread back on topic now.

In complete agreement Nicko, especially on the last paragraph.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.

No more posts on this issue,back on topic.

Re the Cetera, Brian and Al line-up. Should it have kicked off I personally don't see it as being much different to the Beck tour last year as far as numbers attending. The Beach Boys moniker is the money maker IMO.

Thoughts?

Al`s comments about this from the Goldmine interview (printed in July 2000 but conducted in May 1999?) are quite interesting:

"Goldmine: You're no longer a member of the Mike Love touring lineup of the Beach Boys. Tell us about why you made the jump to The Beach Boys, Family And Friends project.

Alan Jardine: We obviously had a difference of opinion. First of all, Carl died. He was the voice and the glue that held it all together as far as I was concerned 'cause Brian handed off a lot of parts to Carl. Brian, being the introvert that he is, decided early on that he wasn't going to be going on the road... So he began to design parts for all of us. Carl seemed to get the rich parts. Carl and I were always locked in harmonies, the lower two-thirds. Carl would be on the bottom, I'd be in the middle and Brian would be on top. Mike, of course, was the baritone. On the road, Brian would systematically deal out lead singing parts to the various guys, and Carl would get some of the richer parts, some of the great ones like "God Only Knows," "Good Vibrations." Brian would sing those to us on the piano, and we'd hear them singing it and go, "Wow, that's gonna be a great lead for you Brian," and he'd say, "This one's for Carl," or "This one's for Al," because he'd given so many to Mike that it was getting unbalanced, really unbalanced. The Summer Days, Summer Nights album was Carl's first lead, "Girl Don't Tell Me." That song we did on stage today as a tribute to Carl. That was a seminal moment for him. My first lead was actually on the Christmas Album, a song called "Christmas Day," which I still love till this day. My second lead was I think "Then I Kissed Her." Anyhow, we got off the track. Carl's voice [being gone] left a gigantic hole in the harmonies. So by that time Michael engineered a concept of a lighter and freer Beach Boys band, one that could move in a moments notice. He would call it "Beach Boys Light". That was his name for a kind of evolving Beach Boys band that did not include Carl or myself. I found that kind of disgusting. I didn't like that.

So what prompted your decision to stop touring with Love's version of the Beach Boys?

We had a symphony tour lined up for the United States. Lots of interested symphonies that could give our music a breadth and depth that we didn't have before and give them a little extra business they needed. A lot of symphonies were going bankrupt. For instance the San Diego Symphony was in a desperate state, and we were going to do our rehearsal concert there in San Diego. They would get one and we would get one. That kind of deal where they get one for their coffers and we'd get a chance to rehearse and get it underway. And then go to the Hollywood Bowl, get that wonderful place sold out and take it from there all over the country. Carry our charts with us and give them to all the different symphonies.

What happened?

Love steadfastly refused to do it. He insisted that Brian be there, I remember that remark which is not all wrong. I don't disagree with that. It would be great if Brian could be everywhere, but we all have to be realistic. He's not going to be predictable that way. He's got only so much energy for that kind of work. He's not built for it.

Brian never liked to tour.

I think Brian was designing our songs back in the day so we wouldn't have to be dependent on him. Anyway, I suggested that he conduct the concert at the Hollywood Bowl. I thought it would be neat if he could come out and take some credit for all that great work. Anyway, that wasn't to be. Mike refused to do it. I think it would've been a great tribute to Carl. It would have been built around the music, not the messenger. It wouldn't have been built around any one of us.

After Carl passed away, you were still in the band and then decided to leave the Love touring lineup sometime after that.

Right. It became one of those moments. Love continued to tour. He didn't stop touring. He just didn't want to tour in that modality. That wasn't his idea of "fun, fun, fun." [laughs] So he continued to work with his band, The California Beach Band, and he would go out and do dates and have surrogate singers do Carl's parts. I thought that was tasteless. While at the same time not going out with the Beach Boys because of Carl's passing so there's some kind of contradiction in that, in my opinion. In fact, my son Matthew at the time was still in that employ, which I did not disagree with because I don't want him to not be able to earn a living. But at some point it got uncomfortable.

So at what point did you pack it in with that lineup?

When Mike refused to tour with the Beach Boys. He just refused to tour with us in any fashion. I can't go into detail with you right now, [but] it got reorganized where Love took the band with an exclusive license and I didn't. And Bruce decided to go with the guy who sang all the hits. Matthew had to make some decisions of his own. We decided to form this entity - Beach Boys, Family And Friends, which I felt would more accurately define the harmonies and the vitality of what was missing in the waning years of the band."

Mike indicating that Al wanted Brian going out on tour and Al indicating the opposite. Big surprise.  :)

If what Mike said is true then it would be interesting to know what Al intended to call that band with Brian and Cetera. I presume that Mike is suggesting that they would have used The Beach Boys name in some way or other. Whether there is any truth in it though...

There's a temporal problem here: even allowing the interview was conducted in May 1999 (entirely possible), Mike had signed off on the BRI license (the so-called Love License) to tour as the BB on July 3rd 1998. Also, Alan refers to an exclusive license which, as we now know, wasn't the case in 1998 or 1999: the licenses offered by BRI in 1998 were non-exclusive and of a limited duration in that they expired midnight 12/31/99.

Eh... business as usual in the BB Cosmos.  ;D