The Smiley Smile Message Board

"Lawsuits aside, Beach Boys still have fun, fun, fun"

http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/artsLifestyle/view.bg?articleid=551357

Some interesting things in this article.  It kind of confirms what I observed through the pictures of the rooftop "reunion"...that when it comes to Brian, Mike is very positive, but he wants to have nothing to do with Al. 

Did anyone else notice this in all the pictures of the rooftop reunion?  All the reports of people who were there seemed to reflect an overall positive vibe, but I believe that they were just being civil, rather than positive.  Mike seemed to be smiling only when he was interacting with Brian.  When he was pictured next to Al, his body language seemed to indicate some negativity, if not hostility.  For further consideration into this matter, watch this video of Mike Love on Don Imus this past month.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vdHSrLPjQ_g

He mentions that nobody threw anybody off the roof, but that he considered it.  Immediately afterward, he mentions that Brian was cool.  Who does this leave?  He definitely wouldn't be referring to Bruce.  Perhaps David, but probably not.  He still seems to be harboring some resentment toward Al.

I think that it's sad, as I think that Al is genuine in his desire to be part of a reunion, and to put everything in the past.  It's funny that Al has a reputation for holding grudges, but it appears that this has changed, and that Mike is now the grudge-holder.

I really would like to see all the guys bury all the hatchets and genuinely get along again, as unlikely as that may seem.

Any thoughts?

Well said,

He also would not hear all when he was trying to get a word in during the interview on top capitol records, It was hard to watch poor Al trying to talk

I don't Mike was refering to Al, he was refering to the Captiol employee that asked David Marks to stand out of the frame for some of the pictures as he didn't consider him a Beach Boy.

Remember, Mike does have an on going law suit with Brian. So why would he be nice with one and not the other? After all, Al was a strong  supporter of "Team Love" in the '70's. Also note, Bruce wasn't hostile with Al...

Brian has had more success with Smile etc, so why would Mike want to fraternise with Al, the least successful member commercially? I'm probably wrong but.. ::)

What, specifically, are Mike's issues with Al?  I recall reading a number of years ago where Mike said that Al had to "get over his anger."  What was he referring to when he made that statement?

Anger at having to keep the summer alive.

did anyone notice the "Ads by Google", right under the article on page 1?
Especially the first one (Attorney lawyer network) is very appropriate !  ;D

Sorry-- that wasn't meant for this board-- and it's been promptly corrected.  Carry on!

I'm sure that as soon as they can dig Al's hatchets out of their backs they will follow Al's advice to bury them.

Apparently, Mike said to Al "Join me, and together we can rule this galaxy as father and son"

That's right. It was mentioned that Al, Mike and Bruce threatened to throw that guy off of the roof for not including Dave in the picture.

Someone  teased and/or speculated about that being the reason for Mike's comment because of Bruce's post about the exec not knowing who David was, but Mike did not threaten to throw a guy off the tower because he didn't include David in a photo. 

What did happen was: after all the photos were snapped a suit asked David to step out of the line so they could do a promo shot just to promote the Pet Sounds anniversary.  Mike, Al and Bruce noticed David was not there and told him to get back up there because he's "one of them."  It was very nice, great actually, to see them defend David like that and make such a public statement about his inclusion, but there was no plot to murder the VP of catalog marketing over David being asked "not to participate" in the Pet Sounds photo.

However, Mike did once save David's life by grabbing Dave's ankle and pulling him to safty as he headed off the side of a hotel in Hawaii back in '63. 

I was there Eric and I can say without a doubt they were far beyond being "civil". I've been around the BB's many times since the seventies and this was probably the warmest way I've ever seen them interact. Especially Brian, Mike and David...they were obviously enjoying each others company in a way that had nothing to do with the cameras etc... Bruce and Al were doing their share of joining in too...Brian and Bruce were doing a lot of chatting up there. Perhaps Mike and Al's interactions were not quite to the "fun" level of the rest, but warmer than I ever might have expected. (http://C:\Documents and Settings\Jon Stebbins\My Documents\JPS\David Marks\Rooftop reunion\ESQ 4.JPG)

What I think is a real bummer about the way Mike talks about Brian is his reflexive way of belittling and infantalizing him. e.g., Brian is being manipulated against his wishes, which is why we're not working together. As if Brian's deepest desire is to be forever partnered with Mike Love. Which doesn't seem true to me for so many reasons, not the least of them being how happy and productive Brian has seemed in the last decade or so.  Say what you will about the quality of "Imagination" or "Gettin' In Over My Head" the XMAS album or even "BWPS." But no one can debate that the guy is up and around, more prolific, healthy and engaged in the world as he's been since the mid-60s. The fact that Mike would continue to spin that as a catstrophe, just because he's been dealt out of Brianindustries, seems really sad and wrong. 

Maybe it's because Brian keeps telling Mike face to face that he wants to work/write with him.

The whole family's interactions and relationships have been disfunctional and sad for nearly half a century. Mike's defensive posture is easier to understand when you go back to '62 and look at the way he, and any outsider (Usher, Jardine, Marks) were being systematically cut out of the BB's pie by Murry, and in very underhanded ways. Murry was constantly pressuring Brian not to give Mike leads, not to give him songwriting credits, I doubt Brian wanted to hear that type of advice. He and Mike's friendship goes back to pre-fame, walking home from church singing Everly's songs etc... That's where they seemed to go on the Capitol roof, to an innocent place that had nothing to do with anything any of us would even have a clue about. I've never, ever been a Mike Love apologist(see Real Beach Boy book for proof)...and I agree he's been a real butthead about tyring to position himself to be more important than he probably is in the reality of the whole BB's scheme. He's certainly never been the most artistically forward thinking individual, and has been a general embarrasment to the BB's in many ways(my opinion). But that he'd end up with a highly defensive, and even aggressive stance regarding Brian, the Beach Boys etc... is easier for me to understand now days. Instead of bending over and taking his screwing like Al, or ejecting like David did, he hung in there and  formulated an aggressive posture, defended his ground and even invaded territory that wasn't rightly his. He's still doing it, he's constantly calculating...he'll never stop. It's got to be because he's convinced on some level if he shuts it off he'll lose. I'm not saying this is acceptable or something to admire, or even tolerate. But I can understand how he got there. There was friction and jealousy from day one. Murry did screw him out of years of songwriting credits, and Mike probably took back more than he deserved. That's a microcosm of the whole thing. And even with that...I think Brian and Mike can STILL go to a place where none of it matters.  I have some old friends like that...we stole each others girlfriends, kicked each others butts, wrecked each others cars, trashed each others houses, stole from each other, and blamed all of our subsequent problems on each other, and vowed never to accept each other on any level again...and STILL if the mood is right we can sit down and laugh our butts off about all of it. Whatever trace of understanding and connection to their discovery that Mike and Brian still share trumps everything else in the moment. Hard to believe it could...but I think it does.

Another clue to Mike's attitude may be a genuine, deeply realized fear of waking up and finding himself nothing more than a gas-pumper back in Hawthorne, shorn of everything he's worked for and having no prospects.   That doesn't excuse any churlish behavior on anyone's part, of course, and certainly the man has some anger issues too.  I'll defer to the scholars who know better but my impression is that this fear is what motivates him and pushes him out on the road, and to stake out that legacy, before somebody snatches it away from him.  Actually it's a very Russian way of viewing the world (Russians always think some cossack or commissar is going to come along and grab their stuff, that's one reason they eat so quickly - so no one can steal it). 

As for Brian telling Mike they'll work again, that may be what the politically incorrect would call a "Chinese yes" (in that the Chinese consider it impolite to say "no" directly so there's a hundred ways to say yes but mean no).  Not nice, but not unheard of either.  And poor Al - who knows?  Of course all the other emnity and lawsuits are ultimately circular - they're really suing themselves, only not by accident, as the Rutles' Barry Wom did.  Let's hope Jon Stebbins and Carrie Marks are right that there's still a place they can get past all that.

If they do they'd be a leg up on so many of the other 60s and 70s groups who can't stand being near each other these days: Creedence, the Rascals, the Monkees, Guns 'n Roses, the Guess Who, Pink Floyd...

It is hard to feel sorry for Mike Love - he is not a sympathetic figure. But I can feel his frustration in not being able to collaborate with Brian, for what ever the reason is.

With a few exceptions, Mike and Brian's collaborations have been excellent, Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame worthy. The B.Wilson/M.Love credit did/does stand for something - usually a great song. Mike honestly believes that he and Brian can sit down - any time, any place, under any circumstances - and collaborate on something special. Mike has probably believed this since the early/mid 1960's, and it must be terribly frustrating for him to not get that opportunity for many years now, especially when he hears some of Brian's solo albums.

I'd like to see them give it another try. When Brian talked about finally doing his rock & roll album, I thought that would be a good opportunity to give Mike a call...

It seems ironic that Mike has certifiably been undercredited yet accused of claiming too much credit and Brian is telling Mike he wants to work with him while Mike gets criticized/patronized for believing Brian and Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   ::)

Cam, you don't get it and you never will.

Don't?  Well, at least there is hope for me.

Those who won't but think they get it, they're the ones to feel sorry for.  :-X

I think Jon and Peter C have spoken quite eloquently about that subject.


yes, Mike was screwed on some of the songs, but is it not possible that in the process of getting his fair share, he overreached? You know, taking the entire foot instead of the inch?

Brian saying that he wants to work with Mike? The one thing that always ticks me off about Mike and SMiLE (and everything else Brian-related) is that he seems to think that he is the only one who is entitled to work with Brian.  I have to believe that a lot of his resentment stems from that.  You could say that Brian should not lead Mike on like that, but Brian's Brian.  He operates on a wavelength that no one else does. 

As for Al "screwing" his bandmates? I think it's outrageous that Mike, the least important BB, IMO acts like he is absolutely indispensible. Your (and other's I'm finding out) mileage varies.

I agree to a certain extent, but Brian does seem to have mixed emotions towards Mike.  He's said things against him, of course, but around the time Brian was to perform "Smile" in Britain, he gave an interview in which he said he had tried to call Mike to talk about music and life in general, but Mike had changed his phone number.  Brian seemed really disappointed that he couldn't get in touch with Mike.  I also don't think Mike is out of place in wondering about how much going on in Brian's life is Brian's will or those of people around him.  That's always been so.  Just look at all the stuff that happened around "Imagination" and "GIOMH."  Brian seems happy, yes, but I don't get the idea he always gets what he wants (though maybe he gets what he needs, to paraphrase the Stones).  Whether writing songs with Mike Love in any way solves that problem and gives Brian a sense of fulfillment might be a stretch, yes.

If Brian got exactly what he wanted, he'd probably do nothing but veg out in front of the tube which is probably not what he needs.

That and birthday cake.

Brian in the last 7 years is creatively somwhat back on his feet, but as I have said before his is not as "with it" as he was even in his most reclusive periods. I blame the Landy meds for it and of course Brian didn't take care of himself at certain points. I don't think the people around him always have his best interests at heart. If Brian wants to work great if not he's earned himself the right to relax. So has Mike and all the others. The point is that Brian had as many hangers on as genuine friends and I think that's true now. His lifestyle may be more stable, and healthy but I think Brian is told what to say about certain things. At the same time I think he just placates whoever and merely keeps his views to himself. Check out the end of Stebbins BBC documentary if you think Brian is in such a great envirement now. Not that it's cold blooded. I think everyone who meets him has some sort of affection for Brian. My girlfriend went to a show with me and said she never saw so much love given to any other performer. Although I disagree with many of his legal and artistic decisions, Mike does loves Brian as much as anyone. Sadly Brian was always the goose with the golden egg and that perverted his relationship with almost everyone he has been and is close to.

Rob,
    I recognize, and I hope Mike Love recognizes, what Brian has accomplished with collaborators other than Mike. Pet Sounds and SMiLE are the two best examples of this. But you have to admit that it's hard to ignore what Brian and Mike accomplished also.
    For just this one area - collaborating with Brian - put yourself in Mike's place (I know that's revolting for you :police:). Can't you at least see Mike's position? I think if I was in Mike's shoes, I would feel a lot like him. When he sees the likes of Eugene Landy, Alexandra Morgan, Joe Thomas, J.D. Souther, Jimmy Buffett, Andy Paley, Steve Kalinich, etc. passing through, he has to resent it. I would.
     It's not that Brian has been composing this exciting new music that requires a sophiticated lyricist or something, although I wish he was. I'm not advocating "Let's go surfin" or "Come on darlin', let's cruise tonight" in 2006, but I'd be interested in what Brian and Mike could come up with.

As long as Mike and Brian are still alive it will be funny to see those sad Mike-haters live in constant fear that they would write together or be on the same stage again.

I would too.  As you said, its not as if he's aiming to compose another Pet Sounds or Smile.  He and Mike created some great tunes together, and I'd be curious to find out what a new collaberation with them would produce.  I think maybe Brian is worried that working with Mike would be a step back for him at this point, seeing as how he's been working with guys like Van Dyke and, more recently, Burt Bacharach.  But if they could find a way to tap into whatever well they were drawing from 40 years ago (which it seems Brian is trying to do with his Rock n' Roll project), then I think the results could be pretty special

Well put. One area where Mike deserves credit, though, are three wise words he's uttered more than a few times over the last several years, when asked about putting the old issues in the past and moving on together (including Al). The words:  "Never say never."

I missed that one. Can you elaborate?

I believe it is true that Mike didn't specify any amount of credit on any of the songs he proved in court he deserved credit for and he did not ask for but a fraction of the worth of the royalities he had been screwed out of.  Your imagination seems to know that there might not have been more songs Mike deserved credit for that he didn't get and know even more about what he did deserve than those who saw the evidence.

I guess I don't get your imagination since it is what is imagining this and that about Mike.  Brian tells Mike he wants to work with him, not something that is imagined. "Brian's Brian", you and Mike agree on that.

I guess my mileage does vary from yours on Mike's importance, as does yours seem to vary, again, from those who heard the evidence on Al's screwing of his bandmates.

Maybe I won't ever get "it".

I'm not so sure about that. After all, where did Brian go to get lyrics for WIRWFC and Christmasey? I would say Bernie Taupin and Jimmy Webb are very sophisicated lyricists, I doubt they'd have been willing to contribute lyrics to crappy music.

Maybe its just me, but I can't picture ML as lyricist for those songs, especially WIRWFC. Maybe for something like Desert Drive though, maybe...

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

Well at the end Brian makes some truly nasty comments about Mike. Then is asked if he thinks they will work together again and Brian says no then looks off camera at someone (I have my guesses on who) and says something like "We don't want to do we?

I agree.  Al is a very kind and honest man, who, yes, has made mistakes in the past.  He does not deserve the shaft he's been given since 1998.  Cam, you get upset when people demonize Mike Love in any way...and I do agree that sometimes people go a little far when people insult Mike.  But don't you think that your view of Al may be just a little skewed?  I think that the degree to which you demonize Al far surpasses the degree to which most people demonize Mike.  

It seems that any post you make regarding Mike, Brian or Al comes out to about this:

Mike=Unfairly attacked, heavily important part of the Beach Boys legacy, who has made few, if any mistakes

Al=Greedy, cold-hearted demon-man who is out to get everybody

Brian=Wishy-washy buffoon who should wise up and go ahead and collaborate with Mike already

I found the interview that Brian did a few weeks before debuting Smile at RFH in 2004.  Here's a few paragraphs pertaining to his relationship with Mike and the Beach Boys:



The link to the complete interview is here, which also has comments by Melinda:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,12102,1128599,00.html

Cam IS Mike Love.  Think about it.

Well said, Eric, and thanks for taking the time to make this point. I haven't seen much of it, but I have seen 2 or 3 fans in my lifetime who believe that Al is really the root of all evil in all of the BB fuss of the last 8 years or so. This position seems to stem from the fact that Al was not particularly succesful in either defending himself against recent lawsuits or his own lawsuits. (Frankly, I don't even know where all of the lawsuits stand, as some of them had nothing to do with the naming issue but had to do with Al being paid back for a settlement relating to Brian's "autobiography", etc.). Now, we can debate the merits both legally and morally of the whole BB trademark/naming issue (which I no longer care to do since I went through numerous go-arounds with Cam on the PSML regarding this topic several years ago; it started out interesting and thought-provoking and ended in circular arguments going nowhere), but even those who don't feel Al was doing himself or others any favors by using the "BBFF" name or going through the various lawsuits usually don't try to posit that Al did it all out of vindictiveness and some evil plan to go after the rest of the group. Further, I find it particularly offensive and hyperbolic to use such obviously inflammatory statements as Al going after "heirs" as if Al is not only being vindictive, but he's also doing a devil dance on the grave of Carl or something.

Brian, David Marks, and the "heirs" of Carl and Dennis all joined Al at the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony last year. Gee, who was it that didn't show up to that event? All of these supposed actions that Al took against the rest of the group clearly would have impacted Brian and the heirs as much as Mike, yet who was the one who didn't show up at that event? It makes me think that Brian and the "heirs" feel no such "hatchets." Mike is the only one who has referenced "hatchets", and even he never made any direct reference to Al vis-a-vis the "hatchets." Geez, even Mike didn't make such hyperbolic statements about Al. Mike has said that Al is suing, and that he has "issues" with Al, etc. But I've never even seen Mike come out and claim that Al is hatcheting the entire group and their heirs.

As I mentioned, I could argue on and on about legal and moral merits of the issues that Cam is clearly referencing regarding Al. But that went nowhere before, and I don't know if I can find all of my posts from the PSML from several years ago since copying and pasting them would be the same thing as posting anew, because the arguments are all the same. But I'm sorry, the whole Al/hatchet thing is just low. If Cam is using this terminology in not such a heavy way, and for some reason just means to use "putting a hatchet in the back" of somebody as a way of conveying that that person is doing something that does not benefit and/or disagrees with another person's point of view, then I'm sorry to say that there are enough hatchets in every band member's back from every other band member to go around. Gimme a break.

Margaret, I'm sure Al is a decent sort.  He may have more to say on the issue but in the court document this does not add up to Al's finest hour imo. My understanding is BRI bent over backwards, even offering sweetened terms, to give Al the equal rights he deserved.  Someone else introduced the concept of hatchets but my point is Al went against his bandmates and their heirs and he lost, several times, I'm glad he is wanting to get past it now but I think he can reasonably expect the others to take a little more time.  I hope they all do get past it and I hope they all start working together again.

Well, in fact he asked "What do you think?" and then the documentaion was over.


BTW here is a new interview with Mike where he says that he and Al still have their problems:

http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/artsLifestyle/view.bg?articleid=551357

I don't like that Mike claims to have written "Surfin USA". He did this in the BBC-documentary too, but I guess he would've sued for that in the early 90s, too, so what's the problem with him?

Mike is a big butthole.

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Yeah, Chuck Berry thinks he wrote it (well he sort of did), I wouldn't argue with him

Well, on the BBC-docu he said he made up the words.... When I said he claimes to have written the song, I wasn't talking 'bout music, even Mike wouldn't go that far.

I think the main problem with what you've been saying is, first, you continued the use of the term "hatchets" and introduced the usage in relation to Al, a linkage between the term and Al that nobody else, not even Mike Love, had made.

Second, you are using instances of court rulings not agreeing with Al's actions and/or contentions and turning that into some grand evil scheme of Al's to screw the rest of the band and their heirs. It was a disagreement as to what Al could or could not do with the BB name, not a grand scheme to screw the entire corporation, of which Al is a part. As I mentioned before, I'm not going to go over all the old arguments again, but I will say that it is certainly NOT evident from the court cases that Al was trying to screw the band. In fact, it is clear to me that Al *believed* what he was doing was right/allowed/okay, etc. He may have been wrong in many of those instances, but your portrayal of Al's intentions (not his actions, but his intentions in taking those actions) is not grounded in anything other than your own interpretation of the evidence at hand, and, I believe, a clear pro-Mike slant that has yet to allow you to point any criticism towards anybody but Al in relation to the band problems of the last 8-plus years).

Third, you are using this instance of some (not neccesarily all, considering one voter may have abstained in some votes) of the other band members and heirs not  agreeing with Al's contentions as some sort of huge grudge that they all have a right to hold against Al, as if this is the only legal action ever taken by one member against any other, as if Al spoiled the whole thing and otherwise they all get along. Nice try trying to pin all of the present ills of the band on Al, as if Brian and Mike are buddies but both have a reason to hold a long-term grudge against Al and nobody else, but nobody's buying it.

For the Beach Boy 101er's like myself, We have read that Al was getting sick of the Jukebox tours as they had become and wanted to fire Mike and do a, lets call it "specialty or upmarket" concert set.
Now my question is, was this just a throw-away line from Al within the group and management, maybe taken out of context by Mike or are we talking a full no holds bared, blood on the table fight?
As Carl was in no condition to contribute in this we must be talking Al, Mike, Bruce and I guess Brian or his handlers. Just who were the participants? Did BRI as a company just take the highest bidder regardless?

And.....?


I think we should read the docu again. Al took unilateral action, writing his own contract, altering the fees in his favor, ignoring restrictions to his advantage and misappropriating the trademark to his advantage [all rules and agreements he had previously helped define and agreed to] and his bandmates and their heirs disadvantage, ignoring warnings and actions from his bandmates and their heirs in BRI.  Perhaps unintentionally as per your slant. 


Brian, Mike and Carl's heirs were all named defendants in Al's suit, was that in gratitude to the one supposed supporter he had among them?

I don't remember  alluding to any of the last half you are pinning on me.....with a hatchet. ^-^

Oh, well I was just talking about the article; I'm pretty sure that first quote is from something lawsuit-related press release from months ago with songs in parentheses that were put there by the reporter.

Cam - I think you are mixing apples and oranges.  i do believe Al's lawsuit concerned  his performing as Beach Boys Family and Friends/using the Beach Boys name in his billing after he had left the Beach Boys.  His main claim, in the lawsuit, was to be able to bill himself as a Beach Boy and I believe he somewhat prevailed in the courts, in the end, forcing a settlement with BRI.

What he charged to perform as BBF&F, what was his percentage to keep vs. pay to BRI (as he was not billing himself as the "Beach Boys,") the difference between both acts, yada, yada is a mess of legal manure that woulld be impossible to pin on one party or another as right or wrong.  For example, should he have kept more of the gate of the BBF&F shows? i think so as the Beach Boys entity/name draws much bigger crowds, higher priced tickets, bigger venues etc then al has ever done on his own.  I imagine Al's arguement was that 100% of very little is very little (BBF&F) while 10% of a lot is still a lot (Beach Boys).

i believe the animosity between Al and Mike is a result of their initial beef when Al left. It reached the point of no return as they traded lawsuits over the use of the Beach Boys name.  As I recall, they are both guilty of  saying some downright nasty things about each other.

I had a post all typed out and lost it somehow, so forgive me if this post is even less enthusiastic than usual. :)

SurfRider, you make some valid points; probably some of the same points I made in debating the topic a few years ago. I just can't bring myself to dredge up the whole debate again, but a good deal of Cam's claims about Al make an assumption that Al was trying to have a license but break the terms of it, etc., when in fact one of the arguments that was made was that he didn't need a license. I believe Al attempted to use all sorts of case law involving other ex-band members of other bands using variations on the old name, and I think something to do with a Playboy model wanting to refer to herself as a "Playboy Playmate" outside of Playboy functions or some such thing when she had no rights to the name "Playboy" as it pertains to the magazine. One can wade through the legal mess and debate it, as I did a few years ago. So even in that forum, it's not neccesarily as clear cut. But, at this point I'm not even arguing the legalities. Frankly, I don't even know where the various cases stand. I know that Al won something in some sort of case at least temporarily, and/or got some sort of settlement. I think he can bill himself as a "Beach Boy" in some form now, although not as "BBFF" or anything of that nature.

I simply think it's ridiculous bordering on offensive (not to mention insulting to the knowledge that other BB fans/students have of the group's history) to portray Al Jardine as putting a hatchet into the back of other band members and heirs because of that legal mess. Cam's arguments all hinge on readings of how licenses were laid out, etc., when it's clear that the whole mess was much more complicated. It's not as if the only thing Al ever argued was that he had a license for life to use the name, end of story. There were a bunch of other arguments made as well, such as those I mentioned above.  Some or all of Al's contentions and beliefs may well have been wrong, but Cam is going WAY beyond simply stating that Al's arguments/contentions, etc. were found to be wrong. Cam's "hatchet" comments seem to suggest, at least to me, that Al willfully did the others wrong and did it maliciously, greedily, etc. Cam's comments also paint a picture where all the other band members and heirs have a right to hold a grudge against Al, yet Cam doesn't mention the 100 billion other grudges every band member has due to other lawsuits and numerous other band issues over the years. I'd like to see all of the BB's and heirs polled about the grudges and issues they hold against each other. I highly doubt the Al debacle of the last 8 years or so would rate the highest on that list.

Actually he does in the BBC doc.

And also in two other interviews I've read. He also kicked up a fuss about the lyrics to "GV", which puzzled me because he's always been given label credit for that. I'm not doubting that Mike was gypped out of major lyrical credits -"Cal Girls" is ample proof of that - but I do have my doubts about some of them (e.g. "WIBN").

Apparently he might have come up with the bit "I'm picking up Good Vibrations", thats the hook you see, thats what made people want to like the crazy music. I don't know though, he's far too modest to admit that.  :p

I may be, could you spell out which are apples and which are oranges, please.

Jude, why don't we stick to what each other says instead of projecting what each other might mean.

Mike's only contributions to Wouldn't It Be Nice are "run run wheeo" "bop bop ba ba bop ba ba ba doo doo" and "good night baby, sleep tight baby", I think.

Those who argue the Mike vs. Al thing need to keep one thing in mind -- there WAS history before 1999.  All of these arguments assume that everything was fine until 1999 when Al went and screwed/didn't screw the band.  All that I have found indicates that whatever feud exists between Mike and Al started as early as 1990 if not earlier, and that Carl kept them at a stalemate so that the band could continue.  The significance of 1999 was that it was the first full year after Carl's death for touring, and Mike and Al were seeking out their place in a world without Carl.

Two events to bear in mind here, the only public ones I know of prior to 1999 (the nature of the feud has been a secret fairly well kept) -- in 1992, AGD reports that Al was thrown off the sessions for SIP and only allowed back in very late in the game; in 1998 for the Super Bowl, Mike had "America's Band" play with David Marks, Bruce and Glen Campbell -- no Al, no invitation (he found out about it by watching it like the rest of us).  Whatever "hatchets" you discuss need to bear this in mind.

Oh, okay, I thought you were saying that Mike never claimed it....

Didn't Al organise a BB style tour with Peter Cetera around 1999? Or was it Mike? I can't remember, I've got a Record Collector from a few years ago with an interview with Al where he says that Bruce says that he would never share a stage with Al again (I think, I can't really remember).

I read an interview with Mike where he said that Al tried to set up a symphonic BB tour without him.

That must be the one

The events surrounding Al's 1998 departure are examined in my upcoming David Marks book. The process that resulted in the shuffling of the BB's lineup was in motion starting around '95 or '96...Carl's illness and death caused it all to shake down slightly differently than originally envisioned. Most people would think that everything happened as a result of Carl's illness, but actually the facts don't support that. Things were underway prior to that...with Carl still on board.

I can hardly wait to read the Marks book.

I was about to ask if David/Carrie had any insight on what happened.

Hi Cam - What i meant about 'apples and oranges' is that there are two different issues here.  1) Al Jardine as a member of the Beach boys in the 1990s and 2) Al Jardine post Beach Boys and BRI issues.  I think your comments were mixing the two up.

i know it got nasty after Jardine left.  I remember reading where Mike stated that Al had mental issues/suffered from depression and more.  To me, that was a very nasty hatchett publically put in Al's back!  But I think it was going both ways.

Anyway, Rolling Stone still has an article up titled "Beach Boy vs. Beach Boy" concerning the lawsuits.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5925546/beach_boy_vs_beach_boy

Maybe, but I have been pretty much limiting my comments to Al's actions after Carl's death which resulted in and include the lawsuits which create the irony I was referencing.

Here's another link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0157095p.pdf

Jon, thanks for mentioning this.  There was a lot of talk around 2000 (?) or so on the PSML and perhaps some message boards about this.  I remember looking at paperwork that someone had put online about Mike not being willing to tour with Al or Carl anymore around 1996 because they didn't "represent the image" of the Beach Boys or something like that.  I mentioned this a few months back here and was attacked by several people thinking that I was making all of it up.  How I wish that I had saved images of those documents.

I look forward to reading your book.  I find all the eras of the Beach Boys fascinating, but I particularly find the events surrounding 1998 through 2004 very interesting to read about, as there seem to be so many different stories and rumors flying around about why certain things happened.  As newer fans learn about the band, they form their own opinion given the limited information available and start postulating their version of things.  As a result, there are dozens of different theories and a lot of misinformation out there!  I look very much forward to reading the Marks book!

Good vibes,
Eric

Oh my gosh, and Mike did represent the image ? I wonder if they talked about disbanding, letting "The Beach Boys" rest in peace. Maybe Mike wouldn't have a band called "The Beach Boys" if Carl had died later (no disrespect) . Thanks for that little info Eric, I never heard about that.

Cam, this sounds fine. My only problem is that, more than once, you stepped into the thread and made these slightly ambiguous, one-line statements about Al putting a hatchet into the back of the other band members and heirs. The statements just seemed like rather offensive digs at one band member; statements made without any explanation as to how Al's actions amounted to Al metaphorically stabbing the group members and heirs in the back. I understand the actions and contentions that Al made that you disagree with, and in many cases the courts disagreed with. I'm trying to understand (and this may be where you feel I was trying to "project" what you meant) why you used such language (the "hatchet" comments) to describe Al's actions. You mentioned in another post that you were mainly confining your comments in this discussion to post-1998 information. Perhaps this is the problem I'm having, because the original discussion began regarding "hatchets" in a more general sense among band members, and I felt that your simply focusing on one member's actions in the last 8 years and using the "hatchet" language to portray that band member simply ignores the rest of the history of the band. But even taking only the last 8 years into consideration, I believe it's silly to single Al out, with such hyperbolic language to boot.

I just wish that Alan hadn't relented to Mike at the rooftop shindig when he answered a question about a possible re-union by saying and looking up at Mike, " Well, it's really up to this guy here." Maybe it really is, but I wish he hadn't said that aloud.

I would also like to know.  SPECIFICALLY, what was the reason for Al being dismissed from The Beach Boys? I'm not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to add more fuel to the fire. I really don't know. What happened?

Al was not dismissed from the Beach Boys, he is prevented from using the trademark because he refused to meet the requirements, he helped define and agreed to abide by, to be eligible for a license to use the trademark. He felt he had rights that BRI, Superior Court [?], Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court [?] said he did not. 

From Ivan Hoffman's analyis of the April 1999 lawsuit BRI filed against Al Jardine:

The Court then discussed “nominative fair use.”  Nominative fair use defense may arise in situations where a defendant uses a trademark of another party to describe the other party’s product.  In other words, when a defendant uses the other party’s trademark in a trademark manner but claims, as a defense, that it is impossible to refer to the product or service without the use of the trademark.   In such instances, the determination has to be whether or not the said use of the trademark will create a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public and thus the defense is only available if such use does not create such confusion and where the mark is not being used to capitalize on the rights of the trademark owner.  The Court cited numerous cases including those involving New Kids On The Block and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  In these instances, the defendant used the trademark of the plaintiff to describe the plaintiff’s own product.  Nominative fair use also can occur when the defendant uses the plaintiff’s mark to describe the title of the defendant, as in the Playboy vs. Welles case in which the defendant referred to herself on her web site as a former Playboy Playmate of the year.  In this latter regard, read “Keywords, Meta Tags and Trademarks.”  In the instance of The Beach Boys case, this would mean that Jardine’s use of the mark described the product of The Beach Boys i.e. their style of music.

        The Court cited to the New Kids case and set forth 3 requirements when such nominative fair use might be available to a defendant.  The Court said:

        First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.

        The Court ruled that Jardine satisfied the first 2 requirements but could not avail himself of this fair use defense either since he failed to qualify under the standards in “third” above.  The various marketing and promotional materials used by Jardine to promote the concerts he gave “display ‘The Beach Boys’ more prominently and boldly than ‘Family and Friends,’ suggesting sponsorship by the Beach Boys….”  The Court found other instances in the evidence to suggest that Jardine implied such sponsorship and referred to the evidence of actual confusion.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/bandnames.html

---

June 29, 2005:    Al Jardine named Brian Wilson, Mike Love, the Carl Wilson Trust and Brother Records Inc. (BRI) as defendants in a suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to Jeffrey Benice, his attorney. "Al's position is that no one Beach Boy could vote to exclude another Beach Boy from touring and using the Beach Boy name," Benice said. "He's been wrongfully excluded from touring with the Beach Boys. He's a Beach Boy, always has been. He's a 25-percent shareholder of Brother Records Inc., and he's been wrongfully excluded by virtue of BRI giving Mike Love – instead of Mike Love and Al Jardine – the exclusive right to tour as the Beach Boys." Benice also noted that the $4 million figure is a low-end number, and the suit could amount to much more once the receipts from Love's tour, which grossed $18-20 million by his estimation, are calculated.

<a href="http://www.technorati.com/claim/wyiu8wbdpq" rel="me">Technorati Profile[/url]

I'm not referring to why Al can't tour using a Beach Boys-related name. I understand that. I'll re-phrase my question. What SPECIFICALLY happened between Mike and Al that Al is no longer touring with Mike and Bruce in The Beach Boys? Was it creative differences, did Al call Mike a name, was there a physical altercation, did Al say something derogatory in an interview? Specifically, what caused Al to leave The Beach Boys? 

Specifically, Mike did the 1998 Super Bowl with Bruce, Glen Campbell, Dean Torrence, and John Stamos. 
Al decided if he wasn't wanted for that, he didn't really wanna be around at all.  There were lots of little reasons building up to that, chief among which was Carl was no longer there to keep the peace.  Mike and Al began to be at odds shortly after "Kokomo", and I think it was kinda like a longtime marriage where the two people drift apart gradually, and it eventually gets to the point where they can't stand to be around each other.

Thanks, c-man. You wouldn't happen to know why Al wasn't at that Super Bowl performance, would you? Didn't Al know about it? I mean, I don't think it was Mike Love's job to telephone band members to let them know when the next gig is! That sounds very Syd Barrett-like, when the band simply refused to pick up Syd for the next gig - and that was the end of him as a member of Pink Floyd.

I'm really not trying to dredge up any dirt; I'm just curious to find out what was the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with your marriage analogy. I guess it could be an accumulation of a lot of things. But when a member leaves a group like The Beach Boys, well, that's a pretty dramatic move, I think. And now it appears that Al would like back in, but can't get back in...

I'd like to know what the problem during the SIP sessions was.

Jon, you mentioned that this subject is touched upon in your book awhile back here on the board, and I think you mentioned a bit of the details involved in it. I'll save getting into the whole story until I have a chance to read your book (I can't wait!), but I have one question about your coverage of this: Who were you able to talk to and get information from about the whole debacle? I would assume of course that David Marks offered his insights and what he knew about it, since he was right in the middle of the whole operation as it transitioned from pre to post-Carl/Al. Were you able to get Al to talk about this at all, or is talking about it still problematic for Al because of still-pending litigation? Were you able to get any other sources to offer information about it? I know David was in the middle of it all, but I would have to think that given the structure of the whole organization and him not being a member of the corporation, he still may not have been privy to everything going on.

I remember reading an interview with David Marks that he gave probably in late 1999 or 2000, not too long after he left the touring band, and in that interview he talked about the fact that one of the reasons he was added to the group was because of technicalities involving how many actual "Beach Boys" were on stage. Perhaps this had to do with a short-term situation before the licenses were handed out after Carl was gone, having to do with regulations that existed in the Mike/Al/Carl/Bruce era of the touring band, but I remember thinking later on that by 1999 or 2000, it seemed like it no longer mattered how many actual official "Beach Boys" were stage given that Mike and Bruce didn't try to replace David after he left with Al, or Blondie Chaplin or something. Today, it seems like it simply requires the license that Mike has, nothing more.

Looking forward to the book! (Any updates on a release date window?)

The Super Bowl thing, to be fair, wasn't technically speaking a BB gig: memory is hazy but the introduction was something like "America's Band featuring Mike Love, Bruce Johnston & David Marks of the Beach Boys". That said, were I Alan, I'd still be mighty pissed to see that on TV as being the first I knew about it. Fielding the phone calls must have been totally embarrassing.

I've also been told that following Carl's death, Alan thought that without his voice the band could not continue, and Mike thought otherwise.

AS for the SIP thing, Alan had been essentially dismissed from the band because he had a severe attitude problem (which may have been down to a bad bout of tinnitus): essentially, no-one could stand to be in the same room as him because of his negativity. It's interesting that in the same interview Mike noted this (Goldmine 1993, I think), he also praised his work when he did return late in the sessions.

In the interview I read with Mike he said Al could not let go of old affronts. Now that is exactly what Gary Usher claimed in the Wilson Project book about Al's anger with him about a loan he gave him for the Rachel and The Revolvers record. Now to be fair Al seems like a very nice man so maybe he worked out some of these issues. In 1993 Goldmine Mike said they did. Something must have went wrong again.

 My 2 cents is that anyone who was a Beach Boy should be able to perform their music live and be able to make money from the trademark. I would have a billing that is more honest like what Al did. Mike should do something like call his band Mike Love of the Beach Boys fetauring Bruce Johnston. Neither Mike nor Al have the original group and I fail to see why how Mike's is more authentic then Jardine's or vice versa. Put simply neither should call themselves the Beach Boys, but both should be able to promote their groups using the name loosely.

In my continuing attempt to understand what happened...

A) Was there an official vote taken to dismiss Al Jardine from The Beach Boys?

B) Did Al leave the band voluntarily because he was fed up with the way things were going?

C) Did Mike throw him out, and, if he did, did one man have the authority to do that?

D) Currently, does Al want to be a part of The Beach Boys?

My understanding:

A. No. 

B. Yes. Maybe/probably but he has also said he quit touring with the BBs to concentrate on a Jardines' album and has expressed being fed up when Brian and Mike [because Brian wasn't interested] didn't sign on to his post-Carl plan to do a symphonic tour [the one Mike has said Al tried to execute anyway with Peter Cetera replacing Mike].

C. No. No.

D. Al is a part of the BBs, he is just not currently a participant in the BBs' touring.  He has shot himself in the foot in that regard [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals link] and is at the mercy of Mike in that regard [as the current license holder] until BRI says different I imagine.

Did I mess any of that up?

No, quite clear actually. Thank you. Except for letter D...

When you say that Al is at the mercy of Mike, do you mean that Mike, and Mike alone, as the current license holder, can determine/dictate if/when Al is allowed to step on stage with The Beach Boys?

I think it boils down to this:  following Carl's death, neither Al nor Mike wanted to work with the other.  It had been building up for some time, and might've happened anyway for one reason or another, but following Carl's death the "corporate four" (Al, Mike, Brian, and Carl's estate) voted on a proposal to allow Mike to continue using the corporate name for touring purposes (and maybe recording, too, but I don't know about that).  Al, from what I understand, voted TO allow Mike to continue using the name...face it, it's a very profitable business, Mike is a recognizable voice & face for that corporate image, and the touring grosses minus expenses were split four ways (which is also why Brian and Carl's estate voted to allow Mike to use the name).  

Al then carried on with his own band, under the name "Beach Boys Family & Friends", which was the only way certain promotoers or venues would book his new band.  Mike saw this as a threat to his ticket sales, and set out to "destroy" Al in court.  What Al hadn't realized when giving Mike exclusive right to the billing of "The Beach Boys" was that it legally preculded him from using
the words "Beach Boys" as even a part of his new band's name.  That was the point when the sour feelings turned to bad blood.  Kind of like a divorce that starts out with two people just wanting to get away from each other, and morphing into a go-for-the-throat, nasty legal fight to the death.  Now that Al can't perform with his band using "Beach Boys" in their name at all (although he regained the legal right to refer to himself as a "Beach Boy"...which seems like a fine point, but that's the law), he's attempting to get back in the band.  

The part I don't understand is this:  if Al left voluntarily as he once claimed, and the touring money was split four-ways regardless of who was touring, how come Al's legal fight against Mike claimed he was frozen out of certain monies by being excluded from touring?  

This is just assumption on my part, if Mike holds the license he apparently is not beholden to include Al in his tour and vice versa if Al had met the conditions of holding a license.  I assume BRI could change that anytime at the end of a licensing period or maybe even sooner if they wished.

 

Craig, I hate to keep harping on this [not really] but BRI saw it as a threat to revenue, if you read the court opinion it is clear that Mike was not in contol of the BRI vote, they took away his exclusive license, they renegotiated a sweeter deal with Al while they held Mike accountable to less profitable deal.  Al could have had the same and more advantages that BRI gave Mike if he had only abided by his agreements.


According to the court summary, BRI had voted years before to split the touring profits with all members but with a bigger cut going to those who actually toured.  Maybe that is what it refers to. Al would have enjoyed this same premium if he had met the requirement to have a license I assume.

The touring money is not split four ways.  The license fee that the Mike/Bruce show pay BRI is split four ways.  I do not know what the percentage is (5%?).

That explains it then!

The licensing fee "required a royalty of 20 percent" [5% per shareholder?] and "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 designated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

I'm sorry I can't lay the whole thing out for you here...but again the subject of Al's departure in '98 is examined in the Dave Marks book. Still waiting to get some distribution things nailed down before we announce a release date. Should be soon. I don't have any hugely shocking revelations but I do have a new perspective on the old story...its pretty basic stuff. So far none of you have hit on the fundemental reason for Al's departure, and none of you have hit on the chronology of the series of events that put it in motion. This is because there are key pieces of the story that haven't been bandied about in public. As far as the lawsuit and all of that...that is waaaay after the fact and I don't get into that at all in my book because it is irrelevant to the '97/98 lineup change and to Dave's story.

As I said before, the momentum that led to Al's departure was underway BEFORE Carl was gone from the BB's, in fact Carl and Al were not at all in sync with each other regarding Mike's determination to change up some specific fundemental BB's business matters. They ended up becoming "enstranged"...Al's quote...towards the end of Carl's life regarding all of this. I do believe they patched it up before Carl passed. But the reasons Al departed the BB's actually began back in '95 or '96. Dave was already playing occasional BB's shows back then. He was NOT brought in to replace Carl...at least not groomed or positioned to replace Carl. As it turned out in reality he did replace Carl, but that was due to circumstance not strategy. Carl's illness confused the original plan...and the adjustment was made. Al was never told why David was brought in, and didn't learn Dave's perspective on all of this until years later. But basically Mike wanted the BB's concert business set up in a certain way, Carl didn't argue, Al DID argue, Mike did it anyway, Al was frozen out. Al was very surprised that Mike was able to pull it off so smoothly...shocked in fact. The fact that Carl became ill and passed away in the middle of all of this ended up putting all of the public's focus on that and has distracted from the essence of the real story. David was kind of a pawn in the whole game, and was really introduced as a potential game piece back in '95. But his head was not in the game at all...he learned about it all, or figured it out, much later.

I spoke to Al in depth on this subject and he was very candid. Of course I also spoke to David and Carrie as well. And I spoke with Annie and Billy Hinsche who had first hand knowledge of Carl's perspective at the time David joined the BB's lineup in '97. Al might have wished the BB's name had been retired upon Carl's passing, but as it turned out he had little say in the matter.

Jon,
    I realize your hands are tied right now, and I'm definitely not trying to put words in your mouth, but the above highlighted statement makes it appear that David was intended to replace Al, not Carl. Again, those are my words and speculations, not yours. Can't wait for the book...

I was about to say the same thing.

Yes, that IS what Usher said. Of course, at the time I didn't put much stock in it, considering Usher felt drum machines were better than real drums  ::) and none of the Beach Boys were very good singers (double  ::) )

All I can say is that David thought he was going to be playing WITH Carl...not in place of him. This has been a tough one for Dave to live down because a lot of fans assumed he was taking advantage of Carl's illness by suddenly jumping into the BB's. But he might have been there earlier if not for some serious legal troubles that resulted in a court case, incarceration, and court ordered after program. By the time he was able to participate in the BB's again, Carl was sick, and Mike and Al's disagreement over BB's business was in full swing. If Carl had beaten the cancer, as many around the BB's assumed he would, and had rejoined the group, David believed he would have remained in the band alongside Carl. That's what he was hoping for.

I hope Jon doesn't mind, here's a link to a previous post of his where he quickly alluded to this, perhaps a bit more directly: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,1249.msg31091.html#msg31091

In any event, between what I believe he's alluding to and what others have mentioned in the past, I'm pretty sure I know what Jon is talking about. Here's a clue I think I can offer: If you know how the touring BB's business is setup today (and I'm not talking about licenses, I'm talking about the actual touring production), this might give you an idea of why Al may have taken issue with things when this type of setup was proposed, back when this setup would have included Al and Carl. Such a setup makes sense in light of the band's current lineup, but if Al and Carl were involved, it would make sense for Al to question it (and Carl as well, even if Carl apparently didn't question it according to Jon). I'll leave it at that, since Jon's book will surely detail this in a direct way. If I'm totally off on this Jon, please feel free to say so.

Yeah you got it right, thanks HJ...the train of this thread is on the right track now.

Jon, what did Mike and Brian say about it?

I've talked to Brian at least a a dozen times in my life since first meeting him in '79 but never have scored an "official" interview with him. I've been turned down by his management several times. I get the feeling his management may not dig my writing style. I doubt Brian would care much about this particular subject anyway...do you?? I've also talked to Mike five or six times through the years and first met him in '79 as well. I did talk to Mike a couple of times this summer...and interviewed him once very briefly, though we didn't touch on any post sixties stuff...just the old times. He recently gave me his cell phone number through David...which I thought was a nice thing. He and Dave seem to have a pretty solid friendship.

Trust me...you DON'T want to deal with Brian's management anyway.

Besides, *I* dig your writing style!  ;)

Jon,

I hope Brian's people change their mind. I think he does care, he seems to have cared who carried forward the BB name.

Sounds like a great opportunity to give David's friend Mike a voice.  Imo it's always good to let people talk, when you can, rather than just talk about or let people talk about them.

This may have been covered but I am wondering why Al became a liability in the early 90s within the band? I read somewhere he wanted to freshen up the touring act, with or with-out Love. I can see how this could upset Mike and cause a falling out between them but given Carls history of leaving the band for a new challenge in 81, I would have thought a fresh approach mid 90s would have appealed.

I asked Peter Ames Carlin about this in another thread, because he mentions in his book that there was attempt to oust Al from the band as early as 1990, which, assuming the year is accurate, would seem to predate even the "Summer in Paradise" sessions where Al didn't participate for much of the sessions. Peter didn't really elaborate much on what this 1990 incident entailed, other than to suggest in the book Carl stopped it from happening. He mentioned in the book thread that he heard this from several sources as well as various documents. Perhaps I'll ask in that thread if Peter can provide any more details.

As for members desiring a "fresh approach", I think the problem with the BB's was that different members spoke up or at least expressed a distate with the current state of affairs and suggested changes all at different times.

For instance, Carl left in 1981, and supposedly some of his conditions for rejoining in mid-1982 included the band rehearsing more, and not booking any more casino shows. But within a few years, as I recall, they were playing casinos again, and I think most of us agree that the quality of the live band varied a great deal between 1982 and 1998. So it appears Carl, like most people, felt differently about these things at different times, and at certain times he decided not to put up a fight.

When there were things going on in the band that many fans would perceive as something Carl would be against, sometimes maybe he wasn't against those things and therefore didn't fight it, while at other times maybe he was against something but didn't have the energy or willingness to contest it. I'm only using Carl as one example, there are surely other examples with other band members.

There's the famous, but unfortunatetly undated, late 80s/early 90s story of Alan repeatedly looking at his watch during a show (hmmmmm... sounds familiar) and finally unstrapping his guitar mid-song and departing the stage. Whe asked by someone backstage what he was doing, heading for the exit he replied "got a plane to catch".

Just as well he was on Bummer; apart from his vocals, there's not much reason to listen to it. Clearly an inspired move by Mike to bring him back into the fold.

I think I agree with Jude in a sense except I think all of the Boys are/were constantly teetering back and forth in a balance of what they would like to do and what their audiences seem to be demanding/responding to.

Yes I agree, it seems like they all had their moments when they would question different things. I wonder what would have made Al do the watch thing as AGD mentioned, it seems very out of character for him to do something like that during a performance, off stage may be entirely different, I don't know.  I have to say this is an excellent thread, very informational fan for a fan like myself who is somewhere in the middle as far as Beach Boys knowledge, it is great hearing from the experts and I think it is great because these events have a direct connection to the state or lack thereof of The Beach Boys today.
Hmmm sounds familar cracked me up cause I know Brian has a tendency to do this at times.

Our veterinarian's cousin is MARRIED to Alan and have I gotten some earsfull. I wish I could say what I heard but suffice to say Al has repeatedly gotten hosed. As for his dedication to the group, I know from personal knowledge and experience he was a team player and that's what really counts. Other than the fact he is a fantastic musician and person.

The story of him walking of stage. If it was during a encore with every man and his dog on stage would he have been missed? May have been a kids birthday he had to catch or something but a late gig start due to any number of problems may have put him behind schedule. I may be wrong but it sounds like a one-off.
How much slack was cut for the Wilsons over the years?

When and why did Al become a corporate member of the Beach Boys?  Because my understanding is that he wasn't always, though that was a long time ago.  His situation is somewhat like that of Don Felder of the Eagles, though Al has been a Beach Boy much longer.  But it's similar in that an "outsider" was asked to be a full voting member of a band that has a core, and then the core members were not willing to give him a full say later.  And there were significant legal and financial ramifications due to that.

Good point about who gets cut how much slack.

When Al was less than an equal shareholder it wouldn't be out of line for him to have a less than equal say would it. Doesn't bode well for all those scenarios where Al was supposedly crucial in group votes either.  Regardless they each have always had only one [or less] vote and everything has been said to have been decided democratically [with the exception of Brian's healthy period].

I've heard two different dates, 1967 and 1970. I tend to go with the earlier one.

Just FYI...Al gave me a later date than either of those when we discussed this very subject. His memory on dates and chronology isn't always the greatest , and I haven't seen any paper work to back up his claim. But I had thought it was '67 myself due to logic...but he told me no way...he said it came much later.

Didn't Gaines say 1973?

Call me sad, call me anal, call me a geek, but I found a date for the "Got a plane to catch" gig - late May/early June 1990, San Francisco. And Alan walked out in mid-set, not during the encore.

There, you can all sleep soundly tonight. :)

Did the group know he was going to leave? Maybe he had an urgent family need, or a funeral or wedding to go to.

...or the trots! ;D

....or a bus to catch.

...or the song was "Summer Of Love" and it gave Al the sh*ts and he would rather be hit by a bus!

Documented in the "auto"biography.

Mebbe so, but that's not my source. :-)

Regardless of any and all legal issues, Al Jardine is missed in the Beach Boys.  He still sings great and his presence would add validity to the band!

I guess the sad truth of it all is that the 'Beach Boys' are really no more and the present touring group, as Bruce has said, is just keeping the music alive.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to solo efforts from Brian, Mike,  Al and Bruce; and the release of unheard of 'BB' stuff from the vaults.  David seems to have no problem making and releasing music.  By the way, has anyone noticed the similarity between David's style and Dennis?  Not the same voice but, what, a vibe?  Comments?

I think Al and Dave make a unique and strong partnership. While I have not heard them together personally, I have heard strong reviews and hearing them separate, I think Al's voice and Dave's guitar playing would make a great experience for a lot of fans, maybe some new twists on some songs! Would love to see some more live action with these 2, Al can handle the lead on alot , if not most of the Beach Boys catalog with the exception of course of the falsetto Brian leads that he used to be able to do. Dave's lead guitar playing has that tremendous early 60's sound. I would be interested in some in depth offerings from both of them together!