The Smiley Smile Message Board

I posted something similar in another thread but I think we need to address this on this board, about how Mike as of now has the right to tour as "The Beach Boys" apparently in perpetuity unless something can be changed. And I think what is forgotten is this...

It is sure BRI's fault that Mike Love could quit the band in 2012 and then take the name with him. And by BRI I mean Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, Mike Love and Carl Wilson's estate. So yep, it is, at the very least, 25 percent Brian Wilson's fault. He was safely well into his new life with Melinda when the agreement started for the license with Mike, and he (and Melinda I presume) chose to give Mike the license. There was no gun to their head forcing this set up. They did it.

And maybe now it's too late to change this. But they did make the decision in the late '90s to trade later demand for The Beach Boys name (there woulda been more demand in 2012 if there hadn't been a band touring with the name since 1997) for a stream of income via Mike and Bruce's touring under the name. And I think it's time with reckon with this.

Thoughts are welcome.

What is the alternative that is being suggested otherwise?

When Brian returned to the road in the late 90's, should he have taken the name "The Beach Boys" with him...despite being known through music history and pop culture for not touring?

Mike Love has a long list of unscrupulous deeds that he has willingly attached to the name "The Beach Boys" over the last twenty years, but can any of us imagine a "The Beach Boys" concert without him? Songs like "Surfin' USA", "All Summer Long", "Fun, Fun, Fun", "Barbara Ann"...they all lose their nostalgic, cornball, schmaltz without Michael Edward Love at the helm of the concert stage.

Fast forward back to the present...I think the demand is just fine. Sure, the venues that either "The Beach Boys" or "Brian Wilson" play don't exceed say approx. 3,000 people BUT, I have never been to a poorly attended concert by either group. Both names have an easy time filling middle-low end professional venues such as theatres, smaller arenas, and amphitheaters.

Agreed.  It's the way it's been for 20 years now (with the exception of C50).   I highly doubt the other parties at BRI are in such a huff over the DIA single.

To quote a Michael Edward Love, maybe they coulda "given it a rest" for a while. Is there a rule that a group called "The Beach Boys" has to be out there touring at every single hour of every day? You don't think there might not have been more demand from the average douchebag for new Beach Boys material and/or appearances if that person didn't think "The Beach Boys" had just recently played the Lake City Falls Cheerleading Expo last weekend? You gotta make people miss you. There's a reason why the "Brian's Back" campaign worked, because nobody had seen or heard from Brian in a while.

I understand your point, but the thing is that Brian is both: a guy who avoids confrontation/tough emotional stuff, and a guy who doesn’t want to get tied up in a lawsuit with a guy who is VERY litigious. Mike’s prior lawsuits and business dealings have very much an effect that says “don’t f*ck with me”. He wants people to know that if they try to challenge him in ANY way, that he’ll make things a living hell and tie things up in lawsuits until everyone involved has passed away.

Literally, Mike would have his lawyers do all sorts of maneuvers to drain all the money possible from Brian's bank account in order for Brian to have to continually pay Brian's own lawyers as this would drag on and on and on, and it would just be gutwrenching to the max to have this crap lingering on in the background for a non-confrontational guy like Brian.

The alternative is to just not rock the boat. Yes, Brian and Melinda probably love getting checks for nothing; but if they were bugged enough to want to make a move, wouldn’t the specter of what Mike might do legal-wise (which would also cost them TONS of dollars in legal fees) be enough of a deterrent?

I'm sure this is the case.

I cannot for one moment think that Melinda and Brian haven't had a discussion, at least informally, about the possibility of doing such a maneuver... and speaking about what that could entail probably would've ended the discussion right then and there. Not *just* talking about the checks not coming anymore (I'm sure that's a valid consideration), but dealing with what hellish legal crap Mike might do in retaliation. That CAN'T be a non-issue in their mind. No way. If you think about it, that has to at least be *part* of why things have remained the same. Mike and his team of lawyer bullies.

All that aside, I think Brian - who is way too forgiving for his own good - honestly does want Mike to just be happy and perhaps thinks Mike deserves to tour as The BBs. Or at least that thought may have crossed Brian's mind in 1998. Not sure about in late 2012...

Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Mike is ruthless.... :-[

Yeah, but what real legal recourse did Mike have in 1998? Not much, I'm sure. All Brian has to do is say "no Mike, the group is over. Carl died. Maybe in a few years we can get together and do something if the time is right." Instead he and Melinda chose to make easy money. Ain't life funny?  ;D

My guess is that in 1998 Brian maybe just thought that for sure The Beach Boys were over as any kind of music making, contemporary entity, due to the death of Carl and the fact that he was ready to fully be a solo artist. And I think that seeds were planted with the Capitol Records rooftop reunion in 2006 and then when things really started to take off after Brian called Joe Thomas in 2008 (I think) that the idea to bring the group back together and make a new album became a real thing. So one thing lead to another and by summer of 2012, Brian is now fully on board as being a Beach Boy again. And nobody ever needed to push Al in that direction, as he wanted a full reunion probably from the moment Mike pushed him out in 1998. Problem was, Brian (and Melinda) made that fateful decision in 1998. And you will not convince me otherwise that the terms they agreed to were not horrible. There should never have been a set up that allowed Brian and Al to be frozen out of their own band with no recourse.



Exactly. It's not just a saying.

The absence makes the heart go fonder saying can be applied to both bands at the moment.  Both have been doing heavy touring over the last three years. 

Maybe it's his forgiving nature, maybe not, but I think Brian Wilson is fine with Mike and Bruce out there, playing those Beach Boys songs.  The one time only McGrath thing aside, Mike's band plays the songs very well, and with the respect they deserve. 

Granted, I've never asked them, but I have a feeling that Brian, Al, and Carl's family are all OK with the current deal.  I think the fanbase is more bothered about it that the parties involved. 

Besides if somebody from BRI was really that bothered with it, one would think they'd have done something about it by now. 

I'm not so sure that's true. I think he would have done EVERYTHING possible to drag things on legally for a long time, especially if Brian didn't agree, and it were a 50/50 split between BRI members agreeing and not agreeing to have Mike get the license.

Plus, keep in mind... Brian was surely in a very difficult place emotionally right after losing his brother and his mother in the span of months. It makes no sense to think he would then start what would be an ugly battle against one of his last blood family members at that moment in time.

I agree, time off would have been wise twenty plus years ago (as well as MANY other times throughout their career) but we're talking about a band that hasn't gone more than six months without performing...ever, to my knowledge. What other act can stand up to that?

BUT, it is not twenty years ago. The guys are all approaching or past 75 years old. There isn't exactly much time to "give it a rest". At this stage of the game, I think all parties need to just keep bringing it on stage since they clearly love doing it. Suppose after C50 they had taken four years off and then done a Pet Sounds tour all together. That would've been ENORMOUS, so I get that. But I will be shocked if in the next four years...or rather as they enter their 80's, all four of the touring Beach Boys are happy and healthy and able to be on stage. It is beyond highly unlikely. I'm rambling, but the point is...they should all be doing their thing...would it be better for us if it was just ONE thing? Hell yeah...but it's gone.

On the plus side, you can go see two great bands and hear a great selection of BB songs.  By attending six BB or BW shows, I got to see about 80-90 different BB songs. 

"There was no gun to their head forcing this set up. They did it."

but there's not a single person on this site who'd say MEL (and that's certainly not Melinda) didn't bully his way into get exactly what he wants from the others (as the record over the many years attests to), including his (last remaining) cousin to whom he fundamentally owes it all to

Now CD, I think you are one of the very best posters on this forum, but undoubtably I think there is the instinct in many of us to true to make it so Brian is above any criticism, even if that means infantilizing him to an extent. I feel like, yes, in early 1998 things were rough for Brian, having just lost two main family members. But he did have Melinda by this point, so it's not as if he were rudderless. And still I don't see how it would be an ugly battle. As far a I know (and obviously I know nothing of the legalities), there wouldn't have been any big deal to shutting down the touring operation except for the loss of income to the shareholders (Brian, Al, Mike, Carl's estate). If anything, it was Mike himself breaking up the band, by kicking out the other regular touring founder, one Mr. Alan Jardine. If you read Jon Stebbins' book on David Marks, it basically becomes clear that when Mike returned, sans Al and Carl in 1998 that he basically started a brand new band, just one with the name "The Beach Boys."

Well, for one...sweetdudejim was suggesting that in the wake of C50 if Brian, Al, and Carl's estate decided to (or possibly even just threatened to) move towards exerting more control over Mike's touring, not renewing the license, or revoking it, then Mike may have decided to compromise and continue the reunion in some fashion. I think that, professionally, touring as "The Beach Boys" is the most important thing to Mike and as a result BRI has a great deal of leverage. I don't buy into the idea that BRI's hands are tied, and I do think that gets lost in the discussion a bit. I wish we knew the details. I'd love to see Mike's licensing agreement. I'm not even convinced that his license is exclusive, but that detail is not important. We don't know the term of the license, but to assume that there isn't a finite term is highly presumptuous IMO. As far as I can tell, it's common practice for a trademark license to automatically renew at the end of each term. No need to vote on it, and it's not much harder to send a non-renewal notice either. Again, I don't know the details, but the idea that Mike has an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable for any reason (including breach) license, is highly unlikely! At that point BRI would have effectively (if not legally) relinquished all rights to their most valuable asset. I understand the advantages to Mike's touring since 1998, especially in regard to Carl's estate, but why dismiss the potential for BRI to monitor Mike's tours more closely? It is literally the obligation of a licensor to do so. It's an ongoing process. They could at least eliminate this confusion between Mike solo material and "The Beach Boys".

As far as CenturyDeprived's points, I agree that Brian is too forgiving (and uninterested) to rock the boat most of the time, but his personality didn't stop him from threatening to revoke Mike's license numerous times in the early 2000s according to Mike's Smile lawsuit. I also think the argument that Mike suing BRI is a significant (if not insurmountable) deterrent is exaggerated. Yes, it's a factor, we are talking about Mike Love, but assuming that BRI has the superior legal position (which is not an unfair assumption considering the details that we know), Mike's lawsuit would fail and it would probably fail with the same relative speed that his Smile lawsuit did.

By the way, in regard to the constant touring...didn't Mike claim that as a condition of his licensing agreement that he must tour continuously? Just an observation.

Well thanks, sweetdudejim, I appreciate that and think the same of your posts.

I think it's ultimately a combination of factors that caused the situation to manifest in 1998. Kind of like discussing how SMiLE collapsed, it cannot easily be fingered as being any ONE factor. Lots of things were at play.

-Brian just lost 2 of his immediate family members and probably had no desire to battle another family member
-Brian may not have been "bugged" at that point that Mike was gonna keep the brand name alive and going, purely as a live entity (the lack of Mike getting a recording license for the brand name is telling)
-Brian seemingly had zero desire to be part of the band "The BBs" anymore at that point
-The specter of legal threats, of who knows how/what way that Mike's team could have spun things to drag on for years and years and years, costing millions of dollars
-Brian not wanting to deprive Carl's estate of money if they wanted to keep the money rolling in (see how complicated this family stuff is!)
-Brian and Melinda wanting a check coming in
-Brian not wanting to start any arguments and just wishing to smooth things over and not deal with things

And maybe more factors too. I don't think any of these points above were non-issues. I think they were considered and discussed at some point. Maybe one or two factors were much bigger factors than others, but I think all of them are logical factors as to why Mike got the license in '98.

Great post CD. And as I'm at work, I'll need a bit to reflect on this, but you do make quite a few good points about how maybe it wouldn't be so easy just to pull the plug on the group.

Don't know if this is true, but about 15 years ago an insider on the Pet Sounds Mailing List claimed that Brian felt pressured to give the license to Mike, because he still owed him some of the money that Mike won in the lawsuit.

Would not surprise me one bit.

Jesus, I did not know that. Mike really had BW in a bind.

Interesting, Tord. Thanks for sharing! I don't doubt that Brian felt pressured by Mike.

It's time for an intervention and a regime change. Gather your pitchforks and torches and meet me at BRI.

They must Call Beach Boys Band to Mike, and Beach Boys Orchestra to Brian judging his touring members :p

Mike is hiding in the club Kokomo "spider hole"

So, while I totally agree that Mike is a total asshole...what is it that you all are exactly suggesting?

Do you think Brian Wilson should be able to tour as "The Beach Boys" instead of Brian Wilson? I can't see this resolving anything.

Do you think NO ONE should tour as "The Beach Boys"? I wouldn't be opposed to this, but Mike and Bruce would just about fall off the face of the earth without it.

The BB certainly over toured post 1980, that's not only Mike's fault of course but they did.

In 1998-1999, there was a vote taken where Brian and Carl's estate sided with Al and let him tour. That's when Mike really after him hard and Al did pull something shady where he wanted to use the BB in his title BB Family and Friends, but not play the full licensing fee.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

Yes, I am of the opinion that no one should tour as "The Beach Boys" unless Brian, Mike, Al and Carl's estate agree upon it. It should be like The Beatles situation is now - if Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia all can't agree on a project or idea, it doesn't go ahead. Sure, that means that we might not see quite as much stuff happen (good or bad) under the name, but what is allowed will have the consent of all four parties and therefore is probably pretty darn worthwhile.

Ergo, my opinion is that if Brian and Al are not really cool with Mike touring as The Beach Boys right now, they should be able to stop it. Instead, what I hear is that even if this was the case, and Carl's estate voted with Mike, it would deadlock it into a tie and nothing would change. Now the thing to keep in mind is, nobody has said Brian wants to take the license away. Maybe he was bummed about the group breaking up in 2012, but ultimately got over it quickly and is fine with Mike steering the ship. We don't know. Maybe we never will.

I would be okay with a billing such as "Mike Love's Beach Boys" or "The Beach Boys starring Mike Love". Peter Noone tours these days under the name "Herman's Hermits starring Peter Noone", because it's not the original band, and the drummer from the original band tours the UK as "Herman's Hermits Starring Barry Whitwam". The drummer and bass player from The Guess Who tour as the Guess Who, and that's just wrong. IMO, no Burton Cummings lead vocals equals no Guess Who. Either Mike or Brian could be touring under their own names with "an evening of Beach Boys music" - some of the Yes guys did that years ago (and may be doing it again). Next week, I will go see "Joey Molland's Badfinger" - Joey being the only core member from the classic lineup.

Maybe they're not, but they should be.

Lets drag him out kicking and screaming before the magistrates, find a top pro bono attorney and begin divestiture proceedings.

I'm sure BRI realizes that it's a non event. 

I'd rather they focus their efforts on releasing a full BW PS Concert (not the album only sampler we got in 2002) on DVD/BluRay. 

This isn't quite how the story goes.

In 1998, Carl's estate pitched the idea to BRI to issue "non-exclusive" license to everybody. If I'm recalling court documents correctly, that was supported with a 3-to-1 vote in favor (with Mike most likely being the dissenting vote). Now, the vote as I understand it was simply to allow or offer the non-exclusive license. Each member that wanted it still had to engage with BRI in a licensing agreement. Mike apparently swiftly did so. What *was/is* unclear was whether Al successfully also engaged in a licensing agreement.

He eventually began touring late in 1998 and into 1999 as "Beach Boys Family & Friends." He was sued, and at various points during the case argued both that he *did have* a license, and also argued that if the court found he *didn't* have a valid license, that he didn't need one for what he was doing. He also suggested (justifiably in my opinion) that he should be able to negotiate a lower licensing fee because he was using the "BBFF" name and not "The Beach Boys." The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful.

What was always clear, though, was that nobody was confusing the Wilson sisters and Owen Elliott for *The* Beach Boys. Al wasn't confusing anybody, any more than Mike was confusing people touring post-C50 without the reunion band. If someone tries really hard to be ignorant, then anything is possible and anybody can be confused of course.

But Al using the BBFF name (or any "non-exclusive" license setup where theoretically had Al wanted to pay a full licensing fee, we would have presumably had two bands simultaneously touring as "The Beach Boys") was an untenable situation. Unfortunately, he was needlessly humiliated throughout the whole process. He was indeed essentially s**t-canned in 1998 and then spent the next several years being needlessly humiliated and denigrated. He rightly so was pretty angry and disgruntled about it for awhile. But by the end of the decade in the 2000s, he was still vocal and enthusiastic about reuniting. He had as many valid gripes as Mike did during C50, yet Al wanted to keep doing it.

Are there other legal documents besides this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html) that you are pulling from? Because other than Mike proclaiming in his 2005 Smile complaint that he had "the" exclusive license, I can't find it.

It wasn’t really proven that Al did anything wrong in 1999? Al was put on notice 10/28/98 that BRI objected to his use of the trademark. They didn't file a complaint for 5 months so that proves he wasn't doing anything wrong? Your version of events makes it sound like Mike subsequently acquiring an exclusive license was the tipping point in the lawsuit, yet it’s not even mentioned in BRI v Jardine. The ‘background’ section skips from BRI’s 4/9/99 complaint to the preliminary injunction on 3/28/00 without mentioning it. Let’s assume for a moment that Al did in fact have a non-exclusive license which expired on 12/31/99 and Mike (at this time) acquired an exclusive license which led to the injunction and ultimately BRI’s summary judgment…Was Al paying for his license in 1999? Either at Mike’s rate (which is what was agreed upon at the 7/14/98 meeting) or at Al’s 5% suggestion which was rejected? There is no evidence of that. Was he choosing from a list of approved booking agencies and managers? No. Who knows how many other potential conditions Al was violating in 1999 (assuming he even had a license). The point is, the courts don’t seem so confused over Al’s license as they were sure that he infringed on the trademark. They don’t mention Mike’s exclusive license. They do discuss, though, how in the absence of a license Al did not have protection under classic fair use or nominative fair use doctrines, nor numerous other defenses. Al threw the book at BRI and nothing stuck.

Just to be clear, I'm interested in figuring out what exactly transpired, best I can. I'm not commenting on who was in the right (or wrong) or how I wish it had gone down.

While I wish that the whole group played together, I have no problem with The Beach Boys being just Mike, Bruce and a backing band. The Beach Boys MUSIC has always been Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al (+Bruce, David, Blondie, Ricky, etc...) but The Beach Boys touring band has always been changing. Brian, Bruce, Al, and David all quit at one point and returned. There were two years without Carl. There was a show with no Mike(!) in the 80's I believe. The Beach Boys TOURING BAND has always been inconsistent with the real members of the group. Hell, the guys touring Pet Sounds in '66 (Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce) didn't play the instruments on the record, yet they did live. What I'm trying to say, is I see them as two different entities. And as long as Mike puts on a good show (He does, I've seen him many times), I'm fine with him and Bruce being "The Beach Boys". 

Anyone agree with me?

I pored over numerous lawsuit filings over the course of 15+ years debating with Cam, so it's tough to go back to it in-depth again.

But the background section of Mike's 2005 "Mail on Sunday" lawsuit states:

BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark.

I also recall one of the Jardine/BRI court rulings/documents stating something alone the lines of "it's unclear whether Jardine had a valid license or not" in response to Jardine's contention that he both had a valid license and didn't need one, with the court noting that it was a moot point by that point in time because Love had the exclusive license.

Al lost the lawsuit. All I was saying is that, to my recollection, regardless of infringement issues, in at least one court document the court acknowledged it was unclear whether Al had a valid non-exclusive license and, at least that point in time, stated they didn't need to address that issue because of subsequent events that *were* clear.

Beyond that, I put my 15 years of debate into that lawsuit and have little interest in raking Al over the coals again. He lost the lawsuit. He was victimized by that whole ordeal in my opinion and had no help from other shareholders. But I don't think anybody contends he should have won the main crux of that lawsuit.

Clearly it was a sound business decision to break things up in this way. 2012 was a godsend to BB fans, but it was never billed as a permanent reunion and those who put on the rose-colored glasses did so at their own risk. Mike and Brian have been fundamentally incompatible for 50+ years and the history/myth/perception of the band has left Mike in a position where he can't let go of many things, even after some of them have been rectified. They really are oil and water and while they had many great creative moments, Brian has done much of his best work without Mike's involvement. The world has pretty much endorsed this realization, but Mike remains on a quest to reverse this--which isn't working despite all of his efforts, good and otherwise.

Since we are evidently stuck with this situation, we can either support both of them or choose sides. I agree that we should support both of them, but one is free to support one more fully than the other.

What we cannot do anything about is the likelihood that the two of them will ever work together again, either live or in the studio. It was literally and figuratively an "act of God" that brought about 2012, and those don't grow on trees. Feel free to think and wish and hope and pray for a miracle, but don't hold your breath and don't bet the ranch (or even the corral).

Right, I acknowledged the 'Mail On Sunday' lawsuit, but it's hard for me to lend too much weight to those complaints considering the language and inaccuracies therein. As an aside, I honestly thought it was a joke the first time I read it. I thought someone edited it before posting it on the board! Also, there were no other pertinent details, such as, a date. I do recall in the BRI/Jardine documents that 'Al's license was unclear but that it was deemed a moot point', my only contention is that i don't recall it being because Love had acquired an exclusive license.  With that said, I could totally be miss-remembering or simply wrong on that point. It's really not important, I know, but it's frustrating trying to piece it all together. I appreciate that you've researched and debated this extensively on the board in the past, and now that I've taken my swing at it, I'll be moving on too. The problem is, there is plenty of room for speculation. For instance, Mike said in his book that Al had a license. Wtf!  :lol That's just one of many.

Then yeah, I totally agree with you on all of the above. I think it's obvious that all of the guys (except maybe David) really like the idea of touring (more or less) full time now...probably because they know the end is near. They also probably realize it's pretty late in the game to go changing things now.

I hate to take the route of morbidity but it always comes up when discussing this...it won't make sense to change something until one of them passes on. If Mike passes first, I think the admirable thing to do is let the captain sink with his ship....the captain being "The Beach Boys" and Mike being the ship that has carried them on stage for all these years. I'd hate to see the brand "The Beach Boys" turn into The Four Freshmen scenario. Bruce would probably gladly glide into retirement. However, if Bruce were to pass first, I wouldn't be surprised if Mike didn't even cancel his shows that weekend. He would become another faceless Beach Boy in the pictures on the screen.

At one point, BRI chose to take a vote to issue Mike an exclusive license as opposed to the non exclusive license deal.  Brian and Carl's estate screwed over Al there by doing that. I'm sure Mike stated his case to them vehemently and in Brian's case he probably said screw it I don't care about the BB and let him have it and Carl's estate wanted the $$

Yes.  I've even seen long time fans say the current version of the band is putting on some of the best Beach Boys concerts in their career. 

I don't remember if any of the available court documents specifically state "on such-and-such date, BRI voted to give Mike an exclusive license."

But I don't think there's any evidence to contradict that Mike gained an exclusive license. He has said he has one numerous times. People who have spoken to insiders have confirmed that, as far as they know, no vote has taken place on the license issue *since* Mike was granted the exclusive license.

Given the subsequent lawsuits and also various "friendly warnings/reminders" that have been given to Brian and Al in very recent years regarding using "Beach Boys" verbiage in their concert promotions, it's pretty clear Mike has the exclusive license. So, assuming it's true that no vote has taken place *since* circa 1999, it's pretty safe to assume Mike has had the one and only exclusive license since that time in 1999 or 2000.

Regarding the court potentially saying in a document that it was unclear whether Al *initially* had a valid license and were choosing not to address it because it didn't matter anymore, the reason I remember that is because it stuck with me, that a court would mention that they essentially were like "meh, who cares, that doesn't matter anymore." But that is what courts do, they rule on the issues at hand and it was no longer relevant whether Al may have initially had a license. As I recall, the only reason imaginable that that particular issue would *no longer* matter is because at some point after that, Al did not have a license and was *ineligible* to get one due to one exclusive license being already taken.

Yes, this is my view exactly. The touring band has seen many different iterations over the years. My preferences would be to have them all together, but that hasn't been realistic for most of the band's history.

And this is fair. But here's the thing on that one. Every Beach Boy on the stage in 2012 wanted to continue to tour as The Beach Boys. Now the catch with that is, Brian, Al and Dave all wanted to continue with C50, whereas Mike (and presumably his lackey Brucey) apparently thought he deserved/deserves to have the name to himself to tour more than he thought Brian and Al deserved to continue to tour under that name with him.

I'm not going to disagree with that. You can go in circles on the topic all day. How much longer could the C50 tour have gone? If you believe Mike, he was ready to pull the plug several times throughout the process.

There was talk about Mike having leverage back in 1998 over Brian due to money owed. In my view, Brian has all the leverage now and could pull the plug on Mike's license if he really wanted to, but why would he when he can keep cashing the checks? Right now, he gets a piece of Mike's touring and can rake in the proceeds of touring under his own name. If you're Brian and his team, why change the status quo?

Mikey will have the license until he gets away from it all by being called to that great big Kokomo in the sky.

Mike is 75.  I think he can do it for another 2-3 years, provided fans keep buying tickets.  I do not think he will be performing at 80 like Tony Bennett. 

I expect the license will be then handed off to Jeff Foskett and Scott Totten to keep the money rolling in.

It's NOT a "non-event" as you so casually contradict me by putting it. Yes, quality new releases are of more import, but BRI should care more than they obviously do.

As a casual fan, I didn't have a problem with Mike & Bruce touring as the Beach Boys. I saw them twice (2004 & 2006). I knew Brian wasn't touring with them, but that wasn't exactly a new development and I just figured he was more interested in his solo career. C50 changed that. The more I learn about the Beach Boys, the less okay I am with Mike excluding founding members (assuming they want to participate; which was at least the case in the wake of C50). Ultimately, BRI's inaction bothers me, but I understand how, individually, Brian and Al don't want to have to force Mike to do anything. It wasn't that they were without recourse, but they'd rather go back to the status quo than fight it out with Mike. I don't agree, but I understand. Still, if BRI, collectively, wanted to do something about it, they could. Frankly, it's mind boggling to me that Brian Wilson wanted to continue touring with "The Beach Boys", but Mike was allowed to say "No". I mean, damn, Mike literally says in his book that he ended the reunion to maintain his license. How backwards is that? He also admits that Brian wanted to continue being a Beach Boy but "you can't change the melody once the score's been written."


It could be as simple as a majority vote at any time, depending on the conditions of the licensing agreement. I think the most likely scenario is that if they wanted to revoke it immediately, then it would have to be for a violation. But, typically, either party can simply not renew the license at the end of the term. It's been stated that there hasn't been a vote for many years, but that doesn't indicate to me that there isn't a 'term' for the license. It's common for a license to automatically renew. The initial non-exclusive license appears to have been for 1 year. It's possible (if not likely) that the current license is similar.


That’s a good point, that non-exclusive licensees generally don’t have standing to sue. Though, it’s a gray area even for “exclusive” licensees...but that's a good point.

Regarding the idea that taking Mike's license is as simple as a 3-to-1 BRI vote, it's not *really* that simple. It would be tied up in litigation for years, probably past the lifespan of some of these guys. Sure, *maybe* they'd get Mike off the touring circuit while the lawsuit played out. But BRI would be losing all of the licensing fees while simultaneously putting out money for lawyers to pursue the lawsuit.

Mike got his foot in the door in the mid-late 90s when nobody but Al seemed to care, and now it's kind of, in practice anyway, a "possession is 9/10 of the law" sort of thing with the name.

All of that, coupled with the fact that it would probably be *very* difficult to even get those three votes, the idea of stripping Mike of the license is exceedingly less likely than even all of the guys reuniting again, and probably less likely than Van Dyke Parks and Mike Love recording an album together.

Howie Edelson put it succinctly a few years ago:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18325.msg477926.html#msg477926