The Smiley Smile Message Board

...seems to be because he says Melinda sent an email saying "no more dates for Wilson" or whatever (which we already knew) and then, most likely most importantly, Mike felt Melinda had disrespected him during rehearsals and also during the during.

So first about the email. As I said, we knew this. What we didn't know, however, there was a later email withdrawing that statement which Mike said was then "too late" for whatever reason. Why it would be "too late" is beyond me. Cuz they were selling tickets for Mike's watered down version of the group? So what?

About Melinda getting in little beefs with Mike? Well that's another issue. Did she step outside of what her role should have been? I'm not sure. But at the same time somebody needed to speak for Brian and his interests and perhaps Brian had Melinda say things to Mike that he might not wanna say. Of course Mike would never consider that because everybody but him controls Brian, whereas he has his best interests at heart.

Also, he makes a lot of the fact that he was in charge of the touring while Brian was in charge of the studio, but then proceeds to whine all about how unfair it was that he didn't get to write with Brian the way he wanted to. And mocking the five writers of "Isn't It Time" is pretty rich coming from the guy who touts "Kokomo" every minute of the day. Say Doctor Love, how many co-writers were there on your favorite Beach Boys tune? Four? Five? Oh that one's okay though, cuz you say so! Sure Mikey! He also whined about how Melinda butted in on the tour stuff. Which yeah, okay, he's the guy in charge of the tour stuff. But if he has the right to complain about studio stuff, doesn't Brian (via Melinda) have the right to complain about what Mike wants for the tour stuff? So I would think.

Now it's lame that I even have to say this, but I think Mike Love is a good singer and a good songwriter. I am definitely so happy for all the great vocals and lyrics he's provided over the years. But his insistence on always being the poor little victim sometimes leads him to contradict himself or just make himself look full of sh*t. Sorry.

Posted this on the other site too, interested to hear what everyone says.

Is this from an interview?

The book. I don't have it yet, but I've read previews online.

Didn't Mike ever hear Denny's song "It's Not Too Late"? It wasn't too late.

Again, just a lame excuse. If Mike was promised in writing a personal Grammy just for him, or some other carrot of industry respect, he'd gladly have made sure to cancel all of those M&B gigs. It's just about what he prioritizes. I can understand that he was upset with Melinda, and perhaps she made him feel like absolute crap, but again, no understanding of the idea of someone playing defense for Brian. Not every 75 year old guy likes to be put in their place by a woman, either; maybe that had something to do with it. I doubt that Melinda acted in a way that Mike perceived as rude out of the blue without prior provocation, like watching Mike mime a shotgun blast to the head when talking about Brian's most sensitive material on the new album.

Did it have to end this way? Could they have continued?
Okay, I'm not an insider, but looking from the outside, couldn't the group agree to end the 2012 tour on a certain date, allowing the various parties to tour the rest of the time on their own ,then make arrangements to do it again in 2013? Set a definite schedule, keep to it, allowing the rest of the year for other touring.
I don't think it would have been confusing to the public if the concerts were publicized correctly. Many fans of the Beach Boys' music don't even know much about who is/was in the band. Those in the know hopefully would be able to tell the difference between the Original Beach Boys group and the Mike/Bruce band.
Ticked off at both sides - why couldn't they actually TALK to each other instead of via email, press releases, letters to the editor etc.
Wasn't a member of any BBs boards in 2012, so didn't know better, and freaked when I read that Mike "fired" Brian. How could he kick out Brian, of all people?! I was furious! Of course, much later I found out that he wasn't fired.But the damage was done, ruining what should have been a joyous occasion.

I do believe that Melinda was acting in what she thought was Brian's best interest in requesting that the tour would end, as it seemed like he was a little slow at first working up enthusiasm for touring. But one can tell that over time he actually came to enjoy the shows so that's probably why Melinda did the follow up email. But it didn't have to be all or nothing. It could have ended for a while, then resumed.

They''ll probably ban you.

I am convinced that Mike never really wanted to do the tour (and maybe even the album) in the first place. He always had the most to lose meaning giving the public a taste of the Real BB would now take the shine off of his band and his shows (which depended on making sure that the BB were a faceless band).

I may be wrong but it was my understanding that after the "no more dates email", Brian changed his mind and they added aid did a bunch of more dates.

Seems like the people advising Trump are also advising the Lovester.

Okay, I've sent my share of emails over the years, and never would I have sent such a 5-word email without some sort of context that never seems to be provided.  I've had people in Mike's camp try to sell this silly thing to me, and when I ask the question about the context for it, what provoked it, whatever; I never get any kind of response. Did this book offer any clarification?

If not, I think it's fairly safe to assume why Brian has never responded to this bizarre, nonsensical leak:  Such talk would be a violation of BRI confidentiality.  It's possible that leaking that email through Mike's underage kid was genius of a sort, in that no one was likely to sue and anyone challenging a child would be considered a bad person.  Then again, t's awful in another sense, I'm thinking.  

If the full explanation isn't in that book, then there is no way to make any logic of this email claim, as there's a lack of any information for us to understand why such an email might exist.  I have to wonder who had the most to gain from all this.

I can speculate too.  The famous email might be seen as a simplistic excuse to end a highly successful tour with all the living band members and to continue to tour under the BBs' name with much bigger profits going to a single member with a license.  There seemed to be a large number of "misguided" promoters who also seemed to miss the fact that it was a different band for several years after the 2012 tour.  Brian's and Al's photos showed up in promo stuff on quite a few occasions.  It may have all been innocent and the ignorance of the promoters.  Like I said, this is all speculation.  I have no proof.  Just like that lone email proves nothing.

I'm thinking my speculation is as good as anyone else's about all this unless we have some tangible facts.  I don't expect them to be forthcoming, unless someone has seen Mike's book and it's all enlightened now.

Two words… John Stamos

Good points and I agree that it seems possible, perhaps even likely, that there is more to it. What clinches that suspicion for me is that Mike made too many excuses. There was the one about over exposure - laughable, given the number of shows he does. Citing an Eagles show and the poor ticket prices was really shooting himself in the foot too, as the show took place in 1975 and included the Beach Boys - it was the Wembley show with an audience of about 70,000. The Eagles management responded to his comments less than politely! Then there was the one about his M&B tour. And how Mike had wanted to be able to write with Brian and wasn't given the opportunity. Then his daughter came out with the one about the shady people surrounding Brian. Was the email from Melinda sent without any provocation? It would be nice, as Debbie has commented, to have some context.

My suspicion is that whether or not Mike was annoyed with Melinda interfering in the tour side of things, one of the things Mike really did not like was witnessing the level of applause for Brian every night. It is clear from his interviews that Mike is jealous of Brian - were he less nasty about it, one could feel some sympathy but bringing up Brian's use of drugs every chance he gets, and the litigation, has become seriously tiresome. I reckon his jealousy is probably the real reason he wanted to call a halt to the C50 in the way that he did.

Ding Ding  We have a winner!

Yep...Ang nailed it in paragraph 2.  THAT'S almost entirely it.  Mike is always the big kahuna with the mini/reasonable facsimile tours.  He's not about to SHARE let alone lose his artificial stature.  Not after all these decades of believing that he's WAY more important than he truly ever was.  He's come to believe ALL of the bull poop which festoons his booklette.

Melinda on the other hand?  If she had no time for the likes of that 'tonic seller' Landy, saw through all of that shyte, gathered evidence and  made sure that 'it' was dealt with it...why, then, would she sit idly by and simply watch another 'pretender' give her man anything less than the respect he both earned and deserves?  The only handling which seems to have taken place was that a spouse was 'there' for her spouse.  WE WOULD ALL want that for ourselves.  [Unless you go through wives like they're a dime a dozen.]

I think Brian wearing the same shirt as Mike during one gig was the final straw myself. ;)

Thanks Dave in KC and Add Some but I can't take much credit for deciding Mike chose to end the C50 this way out of jealousy. It's something that has been said and written before by quite a few people, including Add Some and myself. It's so obvious that surely only perhaps Mike and some of his more obsessed fans could possibly fail to consider it. Or perhaps they do and pile the other excuses on top of it to disguise the truth.

Melinda comes in for a lot of flak but she has got Brian's back and I respect her for it. Add Some is right - she could no more allow Mike to be less than respectful to Brian than Landy.

I would bet on the jelousy angle.

Every night Mike was outshone by the presence of Brian and the miracle that is Al Jardine's voice.

Maybe the agreement was that he would be in charge of live shows but with my infusion of most of Brian's band and some of the song selections ('Summer's Gone') even the shows seemed Briancentric.

It is my understanding that Mike travels light (what can't be carried in the belly of a commercial plane is rented). Brian (and C50) brought everything from venue to venue - a much more complex undertaking.

Well said as always by Ang and Add Some - I certainly don't discount the jealousy aspect.  I just have no way to prove it.  As far as Melinda being a "stand up woman" who supports her man, that's pretty obvious to any human with a brain and without an "anti-Melinda agenda."  We know those people have haunted this MB (and others) for some time.  What they get out of it, I don't know - but it's sad to contemplate.

The day Brian visited that car dealership might be the luckiest day of his life.

In many of those cases, the people making anti-Melinda comments are also pretty much sexist, misogynist pigs, like my "good old friend from across the pond ::) ", so anything they say have to be taken with enough grains of salt to raise one's blood pressure to dangerous levels.



Exactly. I respect the hell out of her for all that she's done for Brian.

Amen...that was a blessed day and we have that to thank for Brian being here and still being The Man.

Stebbins hit the same nail for the breakup back in 2014.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article39497814.html

For many years, Stebbins said, Love toured as the Beach Boys. But once Brian Wilson decided to tour again, he said, that posed a problem.

“Since Carl died in the late ’90s, Mike has basically been the man,” Stebbins said. “He runs the operations, and he runs the show. And I think for the 50th anniversary tour, he had to step back.”

When the surviving Beach Boys were together, Stebbins said, it was Brian Wilson — the mastermind behind the group — who won the biggest applause.

“Night after night after night after night, Mike is making less money getting reminded that Brian is more popular than him,” Stebbins said. “And he has to answer to people instead of calling all the shots himself.”

Anyone who went to the C50 witnessed it first hand. I remember during the UK shows that Mike described the show as 'a show in two halves'. He went on to say 'first half and second half'. But there was a subtext. It was called a reunion but they weren't in any real sense fully reunited. Maybe at times the competitiveness had a positive side earlier in the band's career though I'm not sure of that. But later in the band's career it was divisive.

Yes, Billy, it's hard to miss when these creepy people also post weird, anti-social (anti-human) stuff in the Sandbox that there are a good number who are blinded by their misogyny against Melinda.  Some of the personal attacks on me and other women here made it pretty obvious.  Would a long-time guy friend have been perceived as being "dumped" with a "saggy ass?"  

No doubt we'll enjoy that sad excuse for a human being/troll here again, since he seems to get a thrill out of popping up under various screen names and IP addresses to harass and be belligerent.  And he was, of course, welcomed with open arms at another message board or two.  There are several others no longer here (or not often) who show no qualms lying about anything and everything - so I guess Melinda was considered "fair game" by these sickos.

She's had to be braver than most of us can realize to be Brian's love and support for all these years. The film only covered the first part of what she's endured.

Mike's beard is a piece of sh*t. ;)

Yeah he is. Hard to believe that he's a homophobe once you see what he actually looks like :lol

I think the reasons for the end of C50 are complex. To start with, shows were added, so it actually did go longer than originally planned. There was a lot of pressure on everybody early on. Hell, a lot of us were more than skeptical they could pull it off at the beginning.

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally. Regardless, the entire excercise seems to have encouraged Brian to tour more..he's been on the road pretty much ever since.

Also, just my two cents, but I often felt like the odd man out in C50 was Bruce. Al and Brian, founding members, we're back. The Dave angle got a lot of press. Bruce was kinda just ignored (unless making his own press about Obama on TMZ) Damn even the set up of his keyboard was way off to the side of the stage. Half the footage of shows doesn't even capture him. Anyway, my point is, Bruce probably has Mike's ear about the whole tour, and who knows, he may have created significant reinforcement for Mike's thoughts about reverting back to Love License events.

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

But there's a difference in being scared of losing control, and coming to the realization that what he does with Bruce is just better for him on a bunch of levels. Mike isn't stupid. He would have known that the reunion would be Brian-centric. He didn't have to agree with it in the first place.

Ya, as a fan it would have been great to see what could have transpired from a longer reunion, but what we had was pretty great.

What if Mike had agreed to extend the tour with the caveat that all decisions regarding touring, recording, etc were to be made solely by he and Brian, with zero input from Mel or Jacquie?? Do you think it would have happened?

It's ridiculous to make a demand from a guy like Brian, who has been through *so* much in his life, to dictate that his wife is not part of these decisions. This isn't some Yoko Ono thing where John was a young, healthy guy, while his wife was injecting herself into the process and pissing off the other bandmates. This is completely different. Melinda is there helping play defense for Brian specifically *because* Mike has a tendency, however inadvertently, to manipulate Brian. There has never been a band member other than Mike in this band who has been clamoring for personal attention, with decades of resentment coloring their dysfunctional actions. Mike has that market cornered. And Brian, while in a much better place in his life these days, has spent years being an emotional wreck, and there is no damn way he should be made vulnerable to that happening again for any reason.

There was room for Mike to shine, and he would have continued to shine even more. It just wasn't gonna happen overnight.

Sorry, but it should be an understood thing that in terms of hierarchy, Brian comes first in The Beach Boys. Over Mike. Firstly because he was the main songwriter and creative force/bandleader (much more so than Mike, this is not debatable), and secondly because of all of the personal crap he's been through in his life for DECADES. He has endured more hardships and pain/suffering than Mike. Maybe some self-inflicted, but the bottom line is that he should be the boss, and if that includes Melinda in helping make decisions, then so be it. IMO Mike just isn't ready to feel emasculated by a woman. Maybe it has zero to do with her gender, but I think that probably just adds to it. He is unable to see that it is not 1965 anymore, before Brian had been through a conservatorship, etc.

Do I understand why Mike would have preferred the M&B arrangement? Sure, it's easy to see. He's the boss, no pesky original band members to have any input, or to take away the spotlight from him. Everything else, like the band's legacy, is collateral damage, and that's A-OK with Mike.

But I get it. Truthfully, I think Mike and Brian should not have been working together after around 1965. It's been beating a dead horse of a relationship with two diametrically opposed goals. Even though the two wrote some great songs together after that point (not a whole lot, but some), the negatives outweighed the positives. All because of ego. They deserve to be happy. I just don't think the legacy deserves to be shat on in the process.

I think your last paragraph is a good one, but it also shines a light on how this is never going to be a black and white issue where these two cousins are concerned. You say Melinda is there to defend Brian from Mike's manipulation, but in that case wouldn't it be better, as you say, that they not work together at all? Simple. But there is money involved. Lots and lots of money. And in those many years when Brian could not, or would not tour, Mike was part of the machine that kept the money rolling in. Mike still puts money in Brian's pocket.

I guess my point is that if Brian's circle wants and needs to insulate him from the manipulation of Mike, that is fine. But Mike can and will react to that and his opinion is obviously going to be shaded differently...thus I think partly the reason this bewildering retelling of past perceived transgressions.

I should add that I think they shouldn't be working together UNLESS Mike realizes that he needs to be subservient to Brian's needs, and that they are not creative equals, nor do they have the same amount of needs at their current ages.  If Mike could finally see the light, and "get it", then by all means they should work together again if they both wanted it to happen. That of course would mean not doing classless things like publicly miming gunshot blasts to the head when talking about Brian's most sensitive new material. ::) IMO, it all comes down to a lack of really getting what Brian has been through, and how that should mean *something*.

Somehow Al "gets it". There is a case study of someone in the band, an original member, understanding that Brian Wilson deserves to be the boss, and that he should step back, get over himself (not that Al actually needs to get over himself!), and let things simply unfold. Why not Mike? Again: ego, and thinking that he is the victim and that he deserves this, deserves that, etc, Brian's personal history or place in the band be damned.  Mike's had a taste of being in control, and doesn't want to let it go. Even if he could still be 2nd in control, and yield significantly more control than 3 other members of the C50 band. That still wasn't good enough. He just had to be #1. It's really pretty simple; it's human, but it's very stupid in context. The chip on Mike's shoulder is too big, and it has consumed him, and consumed his better judgment. And it's always black and white with Mike: his plight is entirely seen as not his own fault; the world "owes him", and Brian "owes him".

While Mike's diminished reputation (which he blames on everyone but himself) is indeed partly not Mike's own fault, and is in fact partly the fault of circumstance, Murry, and Brian's inaction... nevertheless, Mike has made things so, so, so, so, so, so much worse for himself with his own actions. Like approximately a million times worse.

I should add that I don't *really* think that Mike's reputation would be all that different if he'd had those credits all along. He'd still be trying to pump them up as much as possible, which would turn people off (nobody likes a show-off), and people would largely still say that the genius is in Brian's harmonies/production/voices, and not Mike Love's lyrics. Then he'd have to find some other reason/person to blame, like focusing his anger on a belated campaign against a dead guy, Derek Taylor.

Mike will continue to praise Brian for his strengths, while being sure to chime in on what he contributed to the mix. No, he isn't going to get into a relationship where he is taking total direction from Brian's camp.

Al, with all due respect, isn't a comparable, because Al needs Brian. He just doesn't have the infrastructure to do it on his own. That's not to say he couldn't, if he had the band trademark behind him, but he doesn't. (BTW I have more of an issue with Al not being in the BB lineup than even Brian. I think Al should be able to tour in any 'official Beach Boys band with full participation. And his presence would make an impact..Mike's license still puzzles the sh*t out of me)

And we see Mikes rep taking a beating because we are immersed in the storyline. But it doesn't seem to impact the box office, and for the majority of people heading out to watch the shows, it's probably of no consequence.

Mike doesn't  put money in Brians pocket. Brian earns money from the entity known as The Beach Boys  playing his music.
"The Beach Boys" is what makes the money. It belongs to them all. Take the name away and see how much money Mike would make touring. Mike obviously knows this, he agreed to the deal.

Yep it's The Beach Boys, but millions earned from say, Sounds of Summer, and millions earned from a licensed band touring do differ, in that the latter has to have a human form out performing to earn the revenue. In the current set up, that is Mike, so Mike earns both 'from' and 'for' the Beach Boys, including Brian.

I don't really think that Al, even if he was able to have some massive amount of political power, would have a problem deferring to Brian. He really seems to "get" it. IMO. Contributing lyrics for a number of hit songs with Brian + Kokomo did something to Mike. It made him feel entitled. I know one could say the same for Brian, but there is really no comparison. Brian writes Pet Sounds when Mike is out of the picture. Mike writes Looking Back With Love + Kokomo. They are not creative equals. And one has lived a much harder existence and should get special treatment.

Plus... if anyone in the band is entitled to having their own way, it's Brian... especially after the stubborn bad attitude crap he put up with from Mike during Smile, which had an indirect lasting effect on Brian's life. I don't for a moment think that Melinda believes differently. Again, Mike doesn't get that. To me, Mike should be bending over backwards deferring to Brian as a way to make up for his crappy jealous actions decades ago. It's on him. There, I said it. This band isn't supposed to be a democracy, or an equal biarchy. Sorry Mike. The power grab that Mike helped himself to in Carl's absence warped his mindset. I'm sure the crediting issue did not help Mike's psyche either. But that doesn't excuse him from having a destructive complex that harms those around him.

Mike DOES, I repeat DOES deserve respect, but that said, he should have found it in himself to cede control to Brian and deal with having been #2 out of the 5 BBs in C50. Still way more control than 3/5 of the operation! A sober Denny would have put Mike in his place about the whole thing if he were still around.

Of all the Mike issues, ending the tour is the one I have the least problem with. If he doesn't want to continue to tour, for any reason, he shouldn't have to continue to tour.
It seems like there was some trouble with diplomacy in the ending of it, but I think that was sort of inevitable.

And Billy, much as I love you, might I suggest you rethink the comment on Mike's Beard on the previous page?

I think the issue with Mike choosing to not continue the reunion is that on the face of it, it is indeed simply a case of “hey, if you don’t wanna do it, nobody should force you.” Nobody would want an unwilling, under-duress Mike on a tour.

But there are two issues tangential to his rejection of the reunion lineup that are problematic on a larger scale.

More on the semantics side is how he did and continues to characterize it. He can’t just say that he chose to reject a ready and willing Brian (and Al). If he’d be honest about it, and if he had not gone with the “set end date” mantra (which means *nothing* when the issue is *not continuing* the reunion; nobody denies the scheduled dates were all fulfilled), and if he had forgone the LAME excuses like needing to give it a rest and build up demand (total bulls**t for numerous reasons) and the reunion not being “economically feasible” (based on what criteria? It seemed to do just fine in 2012), and needing to hit smaller markets (sorry folks, they hit 73 spots on the globe in 2012, could have hit more new spots on further legs, and yeah, maybe some fans will just have to haul their carcass out to a more metropolitan area instead of being able to drive ten minutes to their local county fair), then maybe he’d have more credibility on the issue in the eyes of many fans. I would have respected the brevity of a “I’d rather tour on my own without the other guys” statement. I’d rather hear him say his stripped-down, more inexpensive tour with less original members hitting small markets is *more important* in his mind than actually *keeping the band together.*

Most importantly, rejecting the reunion tells fans and everyone else what’s more important; what Mike’s priorities are. This is one of those bigger “legacy” issues. No fan who knows the band’s story would not be well aware that all of the members, including Mike for sure, would have to put up with some politics, would have to make sacrifices to make a reunion work, and to keep the *full band* together.

What we learned in the aftermath of 2012 is that the *band*, meaning the full extant membership and keeping it together, is NOT important to Mike. Within the musical realm (meaning outside of bigger life and life and death issues), keeping the full band together is NOT a top priority to Mike. He’s not willing to make the sacrifices long-term to keep it going. He essentially, in my mind, QUIT the band in 2012 to go back to the thing he was doing before. His dislike/disagreements with Melinda are more important than being with Brian and being with the full band. Let’s assume Melinda feels roughly the same towards Mike as he does towards her, and let’s *even* assume she does “control” things (a perilous assumption, but let’s use it for the sake of argument). She was clearly then able to get past all of that stuff and make a reunion continue to work. Mike’s dislike of people and/or elements of the reunion, and his preference for doing his own thing but keeping the BB name to tour with, was so powerful that he was willing to reject a ready and willing Brian Wilson. He was willing to let the *story* of the band include the part where he takes his ball and goes home. He let the narrative be another f**k-up on the Beach Boys’ record. A reminder to the media and rock press and fans that the BBs will always f**k it up eventually. It not only tainted Mike’s reputation and the band’s, it hurt the band and brand’s value. As Howie Edelson has mentioned, tour promoters and the like, with bigger bucks and credentials than Joe Thomas, were watching C50 to see if it was something worth putting MORE money and promotion into. Then the whole thing fell apart before the reunion even ended, and the Beach Boys and their organizations looked like total amateurs, laughable considering their HALF CENTURY in the industry.

What a post. You are one of the best posters in the BB fan community.

I agree up to the part in red above, though I'm not sure that I think there's anything wrong with ML prioritizing his other band or whatever else in his life over the band (caveat: I realized that opens the whole other dimension of the naming. I agree that taking the name with him kind of destroys my thesis here. But I'm proceeding anyway) . I don't think it was the decision to stop touring that led to the perception of a f*ck up. It was a f*ck up because the way that decision was managed was f*cked up.

If you start with the premise that it's reasonable that someone should be able to stop touring when they want, assuming they've completed all agreed-upon dates, then there's no problem with that decision.  I don't remember all the details, but I think there was some element of surprise for BW and AJ? Maybe there was a public communication before they knew the final decision? Something like that. I recall that my impression was that the problem, the thing that made it a f*ck up in the Beach Boys' story, was the public communications. Had they managed the end of the tour among each other without the public messaging, it would've been not a f*ck up. It would've been an excellent final run around the bases.
 I think the proper professional procedure would have been for ML to let them know, behind closed doors, that he didn't want to continue to tour. Then, behind closed doors, they would have negotiated whether BW and AJ could carry on the tour with the name, and if so for how long. And money and all that. And if anyone was angry or hurt, that too would be expressed privately. Then there would've been a press release that sounded like the decision was unanimous and friendly, even if it wasn't, and they would've carried on as negotiated.
Now, I know these are musicians and professional messaging and PR are not their fortes. I'm not saying that that's what's really EXPECTED to happen, but if that's the most reasonable way to proceed, then the failure is not in ML not continuing to tour but in the way the decision was handled.
I think.
So, my initial post was a little too blasé - nothing to see here - there was a problem: really bad PR management. I'm fuzzy on the sequence of events and may go to an old thread and read them, but my impression is that it started with ML kind of blind-siding BW and AJ with the decision and from there, the discussion that should've taken in private before the fact, took place in public after the fact.

Yeah, I think there's definitely a few different prongs to this issue.

From an objective point of view, it was HORRIBLE management (or non-management) and HORRIBLE PR. Even if you had no interest in the BBs, and objective observer familiar with the music and tour industries and PR would tell you the end of the tour was a clusterf**k.

Also from an objective point of view, Mike's actions will forever cast him as the villain in the story. And to the degree historical reporting on the facts of the case are accurate, that aspect of being painted as the villain will be totally 100% justified.

Separately from that, there is a larger, more subjective issue about the band's meaning and legacy and all of that immeasurable warm and fuzzy stuff. I personally feel the end of C50 was a very big tell. A very big bluff was called, and Mike lost. We learned his decades of pining in countless interviews to work with Brian were bulls**t, we learned his disdain for Melinda appears to outweigh his ability to work past that stuff to work with Brian and keep the band together, we learned that Mike cares less about the band and more about his own deal, and more about his own vision of the band and brand. If 2012 gave us pause regarding the idea that Mike feels a "Beach Boys" without the still-living and able Brian and Al is totally justified, we learned after the tour that that is indeed how he feels. If we take him on his words, then playing small venues and small towns is *more* important than maintaining the actual members of the band. It's a little like Paul cutting John, George, and Ringo in 1969 to cut down on costs and because Yoko was a pain in the ass.

Agreed.
Though over the course of my life, I've softened on Yoko.

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

I'd like to hear from the other side on why the fax was sent to Mike that said "No more tours" or words to that effect.

Maybe Mike sent crazy demands beforehand... ;)

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.     ;)

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

Exactly, plus some "lecture" of Mike always being the touring band while BW and Al haven't. Even though the reason is that Mike thinks he is the only Beach Boy.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.   

Or let's say a given legendary band (not necessarily this one) ends a reunion was because it was harder for a certain member to maintain a groupie den type situation backstage? Would that be an ok reason to implode a reunion? Or might that be a silly reason? I just want to understand the logic of if every possible reason is excusable. At some point, anyone who pretends to be a logical person must say there must be a line drawn... somewhere.

The beacon shows and banning of Stamos was huge to pissing Mike off since Stamos is the bait for the groupie den! ;)

You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.

Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.   

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

The million dollar question.....

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth. 

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 :lol

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind. 

And I'm definitely not a Yoko basher; the "Yoko broke up the Beatles" thing is probably even more firmly a case of being a symptom rather than a cause than even Mike's impact on "Smile."

I've often pointed out (and I believe Howie Edelson has pointed this out previously) that the current Yoko-Paul relationship (holding hands at red carpet events, etc.) proves that people with surely even *more* reasons to be at odds than Mike and Brian (or Mike and Melinda) are able to put the *brand* ahead of half-century-old grudges.

While the various post-1970 Beatles relationships waxed and waned at various points, at least McCartney could still socialize with Lennon (and thus Yoko) in the late 70s, and even tried to help Yoko and John get back together again in 1974 at the end of Lennon's "Lost Weekend", whereas apparently Mike and Brian (and obviously one would assume then Mike and Melinda) haven't spoken to each other in nearly four years.

FDP-If it was about the music, the C50 lineup would still be together and not this "hang on to your ego" clusterfuck we have today.

Nobody has to answer any questions here (hypothetical or otherwise), but if someone asks me if I would defend a hypothetical statement, one way to quickly diffuse the issue is to answer (whether in the affirmative or negative).

We can pop in and out of these threads as much or little as we want. But if you pop into a thread and defend something and then get some questions in response (and it doesn't matter whether your post initially was in response to a different poster), and you refuse to answer those questions that might speak to your outlook on the issue at hand, one's credibility will then be weighed appropriately.

I would also add that when someone has a pattern of continuously and consistently defending a particular person or point of view regardless of how innocuous or heinous that person's actions or words are, that pattern will then result in more people offering you hypotheticals to try to understand just *how* consistently and without pause you will defend someone.

If someone defended Mike in certain circumstances, while renounce him or his words in other instances, I would guess that person wouldn't then be facing questions with hypotheticals testing the limits to which they would defend Mike.

Funny, because I have a feeling you'd have a pretty good idea of what your reaction would be if, say, a kid started repeatedly shouting inappropriate profanity in the middle of a classroom. It would be pretty easy to just go ahead and state right now, that IF that were to happen in front of you, that you would think that's an inappropriate thing for that kid to do/say, right? That wouldn't be some untouchable hypothetical, but for some reason my question must be ignored.

It's not putting words in somebody's mouth to hypothesize on IF they were to say something, what would you think. It's only putting words in their mouth to claim they actually said those words (and I don't believe Mike ever publicly said those words, so I WON'T claim and AM NOT claiming he did).  

And if you don't like the word IF, please throw out your copies of Sunflower + SIP, because Forever starts off with it. Ain't nothing wrong with hypotheticals, unless they are about Mike Love.

If every fan can't unequivocally say that IF Mike were to publicly utter those words, that this would be inappropriate, then we have a clear cut case of people not seeing things clearly, and being absurdist fanboys/fangirls.

For the record, I would not like to hear any member of this band say my hypothetical quote about any other member of this band. There, I can say it! It's possible! You can too!

Reading all of this C50 talk: how it ended, Mike's intentions, what if's, etc, and especially these comments about legacy degradation: it has me circling back to this damn licence. I still don't get it. Is it irrevocable?? Can someone state in plain language what the terms of this licence is and when if ever it expires? This will undoubtably assist us in undertanding, perhaps not why Mike does what he does, but at least how.

CD - you might be surprised.  I can tell you that I have dealt with many volatile and violent classroom situations.  If a kid is melting down, the teacher does not need "to add to the volume."  The teacher is the adult-in-the-room and needs to diffuse the situation. Responding in-kind?  No way. I am baffled by the analogy.

And, I won't be throwing out Sunflower/Forever (or SIP) for that matter.

But, I am grateful and fell only appreciation for the great gift of this music.  Going all negative on something over which I have no control is pointless.  It is up to the principals.  We cannot vicariously absorb and resolve problems that are not ours. 

Like the Serenity Prayer... Change what you can...and be wise enough to know when you can't.    ;)

And once again, we're as far off-topic as possible.  I know, it's hard not to "bite" when this stuff is thrown out personally - as it always is.  The end of the reunion, anyone?   

It's a good question, and apparently we *still* don't have absolute firm answers. Mike has never explained the license in specific detail, nor has anyone else.

We do know that as of 2000, Mike had the exclusive license to use the name to tour. Apart from C50, this setup has not changed.

The question is, how feasible or realistic is it that the others could take the license away?

First of all, just from a common sense point of view, it appears unlikely they'd want to make that move because it would likely result in years of litigation regardless of who might end up prevailing.

One person mentioned in the last year or two that, from all they had heard, *NO* vote on the license has taken place since Mike was granted his license in 1999/2000.

That would seem to imply that Mike was granted the license to some extent in perpetuity. I doubt BRI would not at least leave open the option to take the license away if they wanted to vote that way (they'd have to leave the option open for extreme scenarios; what if Mike was convicted of a serious crime or all of a sudden decided he wanted to do nothing but "Hall & Oates" covers, etc.). But, rather than "renewing" Mike's license on a yearly basis, they may have just given him a license in perpetuity that could only be revoked in a 3-to-1 vote.

Which also brings us to the other issue: Carl's estate. Even if Brian and Al wanted to revoke the license, they'd have to get the support of Carl's estate. I sense Carl's estate has remained relatively hands-off on the touring license issue and gladly takes their (rightful) share of the licensing fee. I would guess Carl's estate would be a *very* hard sell to vote to revoke Mike's license. Brian and Al would have to offer something pretty impressive or otherwise be super persuasive.

Ok because in the Jardine case transcripts it seems to state that any member can tour under their own lisence provided they adhere to the terms. (Which Al did not want to do) That's interesting, because Brian, Al and Blondie could technically go out as The Beach Boys, under the same terms as Mike. Furthermore, if they could convince the 'approved promoters' that they in fact have the superior, more legitimate band, perhaps Mike would be left without a move. Moot if, as you say Mike has an exclusive to tour in perpetuity.  If he does, he's a genius...and who knows, maybe that's the case, especially with Carl's estate having the key vote.

I doubt very much that the agreement allows different members to hit the road and play as the Beach Boys.  I suspect that Mike has an exclusive license, as long as he adheres to its terms.

I think it's POSSIBLE that if Al had followed the terms of the license, he may have granted approval to tour under the "Beach Boys family and friends" moniker.  Of Course that ship has long since sailed.

BRI vs Jardine 2003
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.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?

....The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style....

There is a whole thread of material in one sentence. :lol

We are going to have to agree to differ on the C50. It was magnificently successful on a commercial basis but the comment Mike made about it being a show in two halves (first and second) had a deeper truth. The first half was stereotypical Beach Boys complete with backdrop footage of young bodies in swimwear, sunshine etc. Oh, yes, a seductive image and one I would have fallen for once but compare with the concerts Brian had done with his band for Pet Sounds and SMiLE for example. So much more about the music rather than the image and C50 didn't come close to those IMO. The second half of the C50 show was more typical of Brian's style but I was conscious throughout the show of how un-reunited the band were - the cracks were definitely visible.

Brian has said that he hasn't spoken to Mike since the end of the C50. I cannot see much chance of another reunion and frankly sincerely hope that there won't be one.

I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

I hope they never "reunite" again. Brian's life has been stressful enough as it is, no need to be subjected to his cousin's presence any more.

I believe the way it went down is that Carl's estate initially proposed to offer everybody "non-exclusive" licenses in 1998. Court documents indicated it was probably Mike who voted against this but was outvoted.

Mike in later 1998, after a small number of shows touring under other names ("California Beach Band", etc.), went back to touring as "The Beach Boys." He apparently most likely disagreed with the non-exclusive license idea, but still took it so he could go back out and use the BB name ASAP in later 1998. He probably also assumed nobody else was interested in going out to tour as "The Beach Boys" at that stage. 

The court documents concerning the lawsuits against Al were perhaps most perplexing because the court never fully determined whether Al had a valid license to tour in 1999 (and one gig in late 1998) as "Beach Boys Family & Friends." It appears he argued in court that he had a valid license, and also separately argued that he didn't need a license to use the "BBFF" name (I interpreted this as being an argument that using the "Family & Friends" variant was different than just calling it "The Beach Boys"). He was apparently offered a license with terms he didn't agree with. It's worth keeping in mind that BRI voted in 1998 to *offer* licenses to everybody; it still meant that each member would have to actually execute a license and sign that licensing agreement.

The court indicated that in retrospect they weren't clear on whether Al had a license in 1999. I think what ended up happening is that Mike gained a firm, *exclusive* license by late 1999 or early 2000, so the issue of whether Al had previously had a valid license was moot. This also explains why there were attempts throughout 1999 to get court injunctions against Al using the "BBFF" name and they apparently failed *until* late 1999 when the injunctions stuck. I believe it was at *that* point that Mike had obtained an *exclusive* license. I think Al started running into problems with billing at this run of Las Vegas shows at the end of 1999, and by 2000 (including a gig I saw), Al was forced to tour with the same band as "Al Jardine Family & Friends Beach Band."

Certainly, from 2000 and on, Mike has had an exclusive license (and I believe has referenced specifically that is an exclusive at various times over the years). For several years, the various injunctions and/or restraining orders kept Al from even advertising that he was a Beach Boy or that he was "of the Beach Boys." I believe it was around 2005 after most of the lawsuits were dispensed with that Al was finally allowed to advertise himself at his solo concerts as being a Beach Boy.

Another indicator that Mike has an *exclusive* license is that, according to Al in an interview in the last couple years, he (Al) and Brian still have been sent "warnings" to not too prominently feature "Beach Boys" in advertising their shows.

The questions not being asked are not about the C50 email itself.

What emails if any came before that one often cited email, and what circumstances if any led up to it?

C50 had a specific partnership set up called "50 Big Ones LLC", and the tour enterprise involved many people and all the related attorneys, agents, marketers, booking agents, and accountants and was a multi-million dollar operation that was running more successfully than most I think were hoping from the outset.

If the notion that a standalone email was the main issue - This is where the old notion of investigative journalism kicks in and interviewers would start asking questions like "what led up to that email that is being cited, were there any other emails before that one?".

Simple fact-checking to get more answers. Unless the notion that a multi-million dollar business venture involving multiple partners and a very large crew of interested parties whose finances were banking on the tour could come down to a single email with no context given is logical to some. Consider the context and consider what else could have happened.

I've defended Al in the "Family & Friends" debacle since it went down in 1999. He got screwed in just about every way the way it went down.

But I also think that the idea of giving three living members a non-exclusive license to tour as "The Beach Boys" was *never* going to work long-term. Look at what happened just when Al did a relatively piddly amount of shows in 1999 as "Beach Boys Family & Friends." Even then, it was a total clusterf**k. Promoters would either knowingly or unknowingly "oops" bill Al as "The Beach Boys." BRI, if I'm recalling correctly, as early as February 1999 was actively *searching* for people who had attended Al's "Strawberry Festival" gigs in Florida and trying to find people who would say that they were "confused" by Al's band and thought it was *THE* Beach Boys.

I think Al tried to both indicate his ties to the BBs but also call it something else so people knew it was different. I also think Al (rightly) felt that he shouldn't have to pay nearly as high of a license fee, if any, when he wasn't going out as "The Beach Boys."

And I think had everything else gone smoothly, Al could have proved that nobody was really going to a show with THREE (at that time) female singers front and center, and a six-person frontline that included FIVE people in their late 20s and early 30s with Al in the middle, as *THE* Beach Boys.

But regardless of how little Al's band actually *was* truly confusing anyone, he would have been harangued endlessly. He pretty much never had a chance to tour as "BBFF" without some sort of monkey on his back.  

Imagine if all three surviving BBs actually just went out as "The Beach Boys", which those non-exclusive licenses would have allowed. It would have been nuts.

I think the "email" is a red herring and always has been. It's a convenient reason. A reason that *wasn't* cited for MONTHS and MONTHS after C50 ended. That long letter Mike wrote to the LA Times about "set end dates" and "vital small markets" and all of that? The "email" was NEVER mentioned in that letter, which is still to date Mike's most high-profile, most detailed word on the end of the reunion.

I think Mike soured on the whole thing and didn't want to do it. Initially, he at least *partly* was willing to acknowledge this. He may have qualified it with a bunch of BS logic (small markets, economic feasibility, building up demand, etc.), but he ultimately never implied in that letter to the LA Times that it was anybody's decision other than his own to not do more reunion shows. He didn't own the decision enough, but he didn't laughably pawn the decision off on another actual person at that stage.

Another reason the "email" thing is total BS is that even when Mike mentions it, he NEVER follows that up with "I was ready to do another year of touring with the reunion band, but Brian said no."

Mike says Brian's camp sent the email, but doesn't seem to ever indicate that the email actually had ANYTHING to do with why Mike didn't want to continue the reunion.

And when the email is presented as a reason, where is the context? I'd assume there was something that came before or that led up to an email, especially considering the magnitude of the tour even in a business sense, and with that many people involved on all fronts. If there was a partnership and LLC established specifically for the C50 tour and registered as a corporate entity named "50 Big Ones", it was a corporation that worked within a corporate and legal structure. A single email within a corporate structure usually does not appear within a vacuum with no context. For the sake of telling the history, it could be asked what if anything preceded that email?

I've read of at least one other occasion where Melinda asserted herself in the music business to Brian's detriment, because she thinks she knows something.  She ought to have stayed out of the C50 shows and let Brian's manager bring up anything that needed to be addressed with other members of the group, especially Mike.  There's nothing more irritating than being an established rock star and having someone's wife attempt to interfere with an operation that's been going on for decades. 


 

Do you have access to what happened with C50 to make these statements? If so, maybe you could provide the context that some of us are asking for regarding the lone email that gets cited so often.

Consider too that some of those "occasions" as spread to numerous members here through the years were not only debunked, but the adage "consider the source(s)" applies in a big way in light of what has been revealed.

This idea that the fault all lies with one email is just too childish for words. It's just a way of passing the buck when coming in for some unforeseen flak because of something you have chosen to do. Even if there was such an email, out of the blue and with no provocation, there were surely better ways to deal with it. For example, if I have personal problems with someone I don't find it helpful to advertise it in the local paper. The only reason to do that is to deliberately try to hurt someone and sometimes that backfires badly.

Emily - thank you for the links.  In the facts section (background) and even well before Carl passed, in 1993, "the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and dedicated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

After Carl died (about 6 months post) on July 14, 1998, and after Mike had worked on licensing terms, and "to discuss how the trademark would be used."  BRI decided that they would issue licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as Mike had. Mike and Al did not want to tour together.  The suggestion of non-exclusive came from Carl's representative was that each member who wanted to tour follow the same conditions that Mike had.  

Mike's license (October 1, 1998) from BRI had conditions, like prerequisites, or conditions precedent to the award of the license.

They were: 20% on the first $1 million of gross receipts,  

and 17.5% royalty thereafter.  

Also "preserve The Beach Boys style and choose from a list of approved agencies and managers."

At some point later, (October 25, 1998)  Al made some sort of counteroffer of sorts to perform as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and sent a letter to BRI saying that the license was not necessary. Three days later, BRI sent Al a letter saying that his "unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement."

Then Al proposed different terms for a licensee and only 5% (instead of Mike's 20% on the first mil and 17.5% over that number.)  Then BRI came back and said 17.5 % across-the-board.  Al wanted a booking agent and manager, different from the BRI list.

The next month, November 24, 1998, BRI met to discuss the proposal.  Prior to the meeting Al's lawyer sent the BRI board with Al's terms which were rejected by BRI.  But he continued to perform and in locations and dates close to where Mike's band was touring.  

The court found that "With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers themselves were confused about exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band.   A number of show organizers booked Jardine's band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests but subsequently cancelled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said they had been confused about who was performing."      

The court finding in favor of BRI is not surprising to me. All Al had to do was use the list of promoters/managers and pay the percentage to get the license.  It has nothing to do with the quality of Al's band (clearly terrific musicians) but just contract terms to adhere to.   As I look at it, only the 12.5% fee, (difference between BRI's figure of 17.5% and Al's proposal of 5%, and the promoter/managers terms were what caused the conflict about the non-exclusive license and resulted in the suit.  

Thank you again Emily for the links, as it is easier to see the BRI license facts officially spelled-out, in the court's decision/s.  

It does not leave room for speculation as to what happened, who was involved and why.     ;)

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

Just so everybody knows, the text above is in large part NOT actually pulled from the court documents but rather is filledeplage's interpretation of the text, several parts of which I disagree with.

I also find it silly to suggest that one citing some passage from a court document and then offering up opinion-based running commentary then leaves no "room for speculation as to what happened." I find this funny because when people asked filledeplage to speak to Mike's frivolous 2005 lawsuit, then all of a sudden there were a bunch of justifications and twisted interpretations of what the courts had said in *laughing* Mike's lawsuit out of the courtroom.

I'm not sure why this issue is being beat to death; there was a quick question as an aside as to whether Mike's licence was exclusive, and this has been addressed.

I'm not going to delve into the meat of the "Family & Friends" stuff, and for a short while there I thought with the departure of Cam that dredging up the issue again 17 years later wouldn't still be a thing. It's just more of the "morals and ethics VS. legal issues" debates, which have gone nowhere with filledeplage in the past, so I'm not going to start in on it again.

It's probably convenient for someone hellbent on defending Mike to start talking about legal mistakes Al may have made 17 years ago instead of talking about the topic of the thread, which is what Mike did in 2012, but I'll do my part in trying to keep the thread on track.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?

Pretty much. For f**k's sake, I thought at least the stuff about raking Al over the coals for the "Family & Friends" thing from almost TWO DECADES ago would have gone away with Cam.

(https://s18.postimg.org/kwcql24qh/image.jpg) (http://Ahttps://postimg.org/image/d3m2t2yr9/)image hosting free (https://postimage.org/)

I thought that maybe it would be helpful to link to the original beginning-of-the-end's articles. Unfortunately I couldn't find the first announcement of Mike as a whole but it is quoted in the articles here.


Will Beach Boys reunion end on a sour note?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/19/entertainment/la-et-ms-beach-boys-reunion-mike-love-tour-20120919



Brian Wilson fired? No, but Beach Boys will tour without him

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/28/entertainment/la-et-ms-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-reunion-tour-eagles-20120928



http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/28/entertainment/la-et-ms-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-reunion-tour-eagles-20120928

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/05/entertainment/la-et-ms-mike-love-beach-boys-on-brian-wilson-20121004



'It kinda feels like getting fired' -- Brian Wilson to Mike Love

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/entertainment/la-et-ms-brian-wilson-al-jardine-respond-to-mike-love-on-beach-boys-flap-20121008

Taking Al and those issues away for a moment, the Nutty Jerry's booking mess was originally reported in the press local to the area of the shows and the venue in Texas, June 2012, where the C50 lineup had just played in early June at the larger venue in the area. The reporter who broke the story first reported an October booking being advertised for Nutty Jerry's, asked for confirmation that it was indeed the Brian/Al/David C50 lineup, received that confirmation, and went with the story. Then within a week of that, the same paper published a correction that came from Nutty Jerry's with an official statement. The October show was cancelled because it was not going to be the C50 lineup, and it suggested there were issues with how the show was originally booked that caused confusion, to the point where the venue thought it was going to be a C50 show. In the correction article, the reporter also mentioned that Rolling Stone had just published reports that Mike had been booking other shows for his band during C50.

So that's what happened, and consider the date of June 2012.

The part that sticks out and always did after more of the details came out wasn't the deal with "confusion" which is blatantly obvious as shown by what happened here, but in what exactly happened to cause this considering how many agents, lawyers, managers, and assorted staff would be involved in booking such a show at the height of the C50 tour, and considering yet again all of this was being centralized around a corporate entity known as "50 Big Ones".

It might suggest yet again that there could be more than just the lone email that was surrounding all of these issues in the same month, and also would lead to a question of how these shows were being booked with what appeared to be a lack of communication with "50 Big Ones" regarding these bookings like Nutty Jerry's. Something that should have happened didn't happen which led to a booking that eventually got cancelled after the issue of who was actually booked to play a show in October got cleared up.

Hey Jude - BRI sued Al - not Mike. That includes Brian, Mike and Carl's estate.  The quotes are directly from the court decision.  How that is contorted into Mike-Apologist (when there would be 3 members out of 4 members involved.) It related to terms of the license which are often speculated about and the bottom line is that Al did not "pay the piper" to dance to the music.  It has nothing to do with Nutty Jerry's promotion.  Mike has paid the dough to the corporation for the right to earn a living, and distribute income (the reason that a corporation exists is to make $$$) to the other shareholders/directors.  

Emily posted the link - and I responded with both court text and a viewpoint, and last time I checked viewpoint-based posting is what this board is all about. It was hardly a viewpoint.  The court just took the facts and documents in front of them.  They looked forward from 1993 as to how the money would be distributed and how the trademark would be protected. The court considered all of that.

The suit is entitled - "BROTHER RECORDS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendent-Appellee, v. Alan Jardine, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant."

And,  I do not see Michael Edward Love mentioned in the title of the case. Do you see his name?  I cannot.  Unless it is in invisible ink.

The fellow shareholder/directors of BRI sued Al at that time.  The terms of the license at that time were revealed by the court.  
  

Here's hoping that Nutty Jerry's upcoming book release will finally put these issues to rest.  :wink

It may have BRI Inc., but good luck convincing people that Brian or the Carl Estate decided that Al was violating the BB  trademark and then convinced the shareholders to green light a lawsuit.

Please actually read what I wrote. I SPECIFICALLY said that BRI sued Al. It's right there in my post.

This straw man thing, making assertions regarding things that NOBODY disagrees with, ends up going nowhere.

Back to the actual topic of the thread hopefully......

FDP's shift is in full force for MELCO... ;).    Gotta earn those tickets somehow...

This is an important point. The lawsuits indeed came from BRI, but the licensee certainly plays a role as well. Here's a post from 2014 from someone who would know that speaks to this:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18293.msg476723.html#msg476723

There were more emails, but Hillary deleted them, at least that's what Putin has told me.....  :lol

I would love to interview Joe Thomas about recording the album and the tour.  I'm sure he would have some interesting experiences to talk about.

It seems to still be a hot button topic that people don't want to touch too much. Even writer Jim Peterik, when asked about "Sail Away" on NPP, didn't want to get into the demise of the reunion:

Whitman: This is supposed to be Brian’s vision of what would have been the next Beach Boys album, correct? He made That’s Why God Made the Radio and then he wasn’t in The Beach Boys anymore. What’s up with that?

Peterik: I can’t talk about that, but anyway … how about those Bears?

http://www.technologytell.com/entertainment/63061/true-survivor-songwritermelodic-rocker-jim-peterik-interviewed/

So..The name BBF&F confused fans and promotors however if Al paid the 17.5%, they could use the name and the fans and promotors would now not be confused?

I'm confused! :lol

It's a love thang! :lol

Must be this "new math" the kids are learning... :old