|
Title: BB members and hypothetical political leverage in the band Post by: CenturyDeprived on August 01, 2015, 10:53:03 AM How much political leverage have each of the band members actually had over the years at various times? Was it always a matter of majority vote ruling? And was the actual political leverage setup that the BBs have had over the decades pretty similar to the political leverage setup of most other bands from that era? Especially bands with family members?
And hypothetically speaking, if any one band member had political leverage to force something to happen with the band name, without excruciating legal consequences (and with the band/brand name intact), what would they each have done? -Would Dennis and Carl have made sure the band stayed on a progressive path in the 70s? And if so, would Endless Summer have happened? -Would Mike have forced Smile to be set aside, or forced VDP out and demanded the album have his own lyrics about different subjects? -I suppose one could make the argument that Carl's reluctance to finish the 1995 sessions forced them to end, though I guess the band could have finished them without him if they really wanted to (would've been a bad idea though). -Would Dennis' deep dissatisfaction over MIU and KTSA made him stop those albums from being made/released? Title: Re: BB members and hypothetical political leverage in the band Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 01, 2015, 02:57:10 PM As ever I stand to be corrected, but I've never seen anything to counter the basic system of majority vote. Which was fine when there were five voting members, but, reportedly, in 1976 Brian either plain didn't vote or gave his vote to Mike. On Dennis passing and the selling of his vote back to BRI, things got sticky. OK, stickier.
|