The Smiley Smile Message Board

Did Al quit or was he forced out by Mike and Bruce?  What are the odds he will rejoin the traveling Beach Boys?

Al is a Californian variety of the infamous gnomes and elfs that people like Terrence McKenna have seen on DMT. So, naturally, I assume he left the Beach Boys to re-join the Earth Coincidence Control Office on a different plane of existence.

As far as I have seen, there has never been a complete answer given to this question.  We know that Al was "fired" by Mike.  However, we also know that Al was/is an equal partner in BRI with Mike, Brian (Melinda) and Carl (Jonah/Justyn).  Logically, this would mean that to get Al "fired" from the touring group, Mike would have had to get the votes of both Melinda and Carl's sons.  Did this in fact happen?  If so, why?  A more plausible explanation would be that MIke and Al decided to go separate ways, with each vying for the right to use the Beach Boys name.  We know that each was given a license to do so, but only Mike's was renewed (leading to the various legal actions), which was the likely a decision Melinda and Jonah/Justyn made on a $ basis.  If that is the true story, then the one question remains of how Mike was able to schedule the Jan. 98 Super Bowl performance without Al being invited, as we have heard that was Al's "first knowledge of being fired." ???

The entire issue between Mike and Al had to do with who was in charge of promotion/production/business of the Beach Boys live concerts and the friction began in '95 or '96...Al wanted things to stay the same as they had been for decades, Mike had a plan to take over that aspect of the business and when he did Al dissented. Carl's death was not the reason Al left. The whole story is in the Dave Marks book. BTW...when Mike, Bruce and Dave played the '98 Super Bowl it was as America's Band I believe, and not the BB's...Al learned about it when he saw it on TV.

Yes, I have read the book, and I found that section to be the most compelling (for instance,  Al asking Dave "why are you here", when Dave returned to to the group during Carl's illness). And you're right , the super bowl group was billed as America's Band, I forgot that. Although I seem to recall the TV network actually referring to them as the Beach Boys. Still leaves the whole voting him out question unanswered, though.  Thanks, Jon.

When I watched the Super Bowl, they were introduced as the Beach Boys on tv.  This is kind of an interesting little sub-drama, sounds like Al was forced out, but why?  I remember seeing an ad for a concert called Beach Boys Friends and Family, and then the lawsuits started.

When the announcement first came out about the Super Bowl appearance, BBFC was told emphatically by BRI that it was NOT a Beach Boys gig.

It's possible the TV announcer made an error....

I think you have jumped to a scenario/conclusion that might not be correct. As the Licensor BRI hands the rights to the use of the "Beach Boys' trademark to the licensee, Mike Love. Mike then has sole power of hire & fire of staff and the licenor, BRI, has no say in it. I have not come across a licensing agreement where the licensor can control the licesee's power of hire & fire and how they manage the day to day running of the business - provided they are not in breach of the terms and conditions of the licence agreement. Obviously Mike was not in breach of the licence agreement because BRI (including Al as a shareholder) did not instigate termination of the licence agreement because of a breach of the terms & conditions.

I hope that made sense.

I don't think any individual had control of the group or trademark at the time Al quit, I don't think Mike could have fired Al anymore than Al could have fired Mike.

Didn't Al allegedly want to arrange a series of concerts including Brian but Brian didn't want to go along and Mike didn't want to go along if Brian didn't and Al allegedly proposed replacing Mike with Peter Cetera?

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

Right, should have said we "heard" he was fired, not we "know" he was fired.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

I can understand why Al would feel that way; obviously, there would be a huge hole in the band without Carl. But I wonder if now, ten years later, if he still feels that way.  :-\

I don't know, I'm sure plenty of people feel that way.

In a related , where is it now question; Does anyone know the result of Al and Mike's out of court settlement last year?

 Brian was even in court one day and then it was announced they had settled.  No details.

The only recent event between them is Mike singing on Al's solo album (Don't Fight the Sea).

The suits were dropped. All three are getting along well with each other. Brian (Melinda) doesn't want a reunion though. But that's another THREAD.

Thanks - I was curious as I've never heard any details of the conclusion.

And about Bruce assisting Mike in forcing Al out of the band, Bruce is the Southern California version of the Queen of England. He looks nice, smells nice, and always has a smile on his face. And every night he sits on a throne singing the same tune. Only problem is that people just don't care.

That, and he isn't a member of BRI.

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

Awwwwwww! The guy DID write Disney Girls!

But he used to be, until he sold his share back to BRI.

Andrew, this statement has always confused me, maybe you could clarify:

According to Jon Stebbins' interview w/ Al Jardine for the Lost Beach Boy, Al said he wasn't made a member of BRI until 1973.  Bruce left in what, 1972?  So does that mean they asked Bruce to be a partner before Al ?

Y'know... that's a damn good question - it's possible he means he was made a member 2nd time around then sold his share back. I'll ask him.

Bruce is a very smart man when it comes to ownership / publishing / etc - so  I highly doubt he was offered a partnership in BRI after he returned in 1978 (?) and then sold it back but continued to work on a per diem basis as a glorified sideman for 30 years.  It makes sense to me that Bruce "sold back" rights to receive artist's royalties from Capitol when he left in 1972, not necessarily corporate ownership in BRI...so I will be very interested in hearing what he has to say.  Thanks, Andrew!

Al was invited to join BRI in '73 around the Holland period. At one point in 1980 or 1981 he was president of Brother Records. It makes no sense that Bruce would be offered shares in BRI before Al unless Al just didn't want a part of the family business. But then again, both are incredibly money-minded, so that's anyone's guess.

Who in rock and roll isn't?

Brian Wilson. All these little birdies keep telling me.

I think its pretty safe to say Al didn't turn down full partnership prior to 1973 in favor of being paid less for the same work and no real job security.

The other thing that doesn’t sit right with me about the Bruce / BRI claim (did it actually come from Bruce?) is the fact that, when David signed his settlement agreement with Capitol Records in 1971, Brian, Dennis, Carl, Mike and Al were individually and collectively known as The Beach Boys, absolved from any claims against them should David figure out the true nature of the settlement he was receiving.  No mention of Bruce Johnston.

I would think the collective “Beach Boys” would have included Bruce if, in fact, he was a partner?  I mean, Al wasn’t even a corporate member yet, and he was included in the laundry list of people David couldn’t sue for damages that occurred to him prior to 1971…so why would they leave Bruce, an alleged partner in BRI, vulnerable? 

No.

brilliant piece of perception, that one!! I hope no one hurt their brain working that out!  :)

No?  I'm pretty sure Al discussed the post-Carl, pre-"Love license" concerts in interview and Mike has discussed it in interview also; maybe I misunderstood. 

What did Al sue Brian, Mike and Carl's estate for then?

Al didn't sue Brian, Mike and Carl's estate - he sued BRI claiming breach of contract. As Andrew Doe famously put it on his website, he basically sued himself in the process.

Hmmm, I remember it as specifically naming Brian [and Melinda?], Mike and Carl's estate represented by a lawyer.

The whole Al Jardine thing has always confused me. It seems that even Al and his own son Matt can't get their story straight. Al has stated that he"quit" as a member of The Beach Boys when Carl died. Or rather, he would have quit, had he not been forced out against his will. Matt has stated that not only did Al NOT quit, but he actually wanted to change the Beach Boys setlist and start playing more less known songs.

A simple gap that could use filling here: Where did the Beach Boys stop, to begin with, and "America's Band" begin?  I'm going to just guess that Carl's absence invoked the one-Wilson minimum rule...? Did they need to reconstitute who the band was, legally, even while Carl was alive?

Welcome back, Joe!

Al was still with the Beach Boys in early May 1998 for a couple of shows.

The final gig as The Beach Boys - with Alan - was on May 9th 1998. From then on, until July 18th, they were billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys".

The 'One Wilson' rule was revoked some years before.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during that period!!! >:(

Let's not let this thread slip away.  Looking forward to Bruce's response as I've always been curious about this too.

Sure it wasn't "The Beach Boys Friends and Family"?

The only thing I can think of is, maybe Al felt at the end of the day he stood a better chance going solo?  He pretty much is the only one left with a "good" voice.  Also, it seems like he's done fairly well for himself, he hasn't been struggling the last ten years has he?  I really don't why he would leave the Beach Boys.  It's never seemed like he was that worried about there being no Wilson's in the band.  Was he?

Pretty sure Al helped craft the contract for he, Brian and Mike to have individual licenses to call their respective post-Carl bands The Beach Boys. The addition of Family and Friends was a distinction without a difference apparently according to the courts.

"Distinction without a difference according to the courts" doesn't change the fact that he wanted to call his band "Beach Boys Family & Friends", not "The Beach Boys".  That is why I replied "no" to your original question earlier in the thread.  It upsets me when people who seem to have something against Al try to twist things around into something they never were.

You must be used to this by now.

Accustomed to it, yes, but it still rankles my nerves.

It could be I don't understand or there is more to the story.

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

Or maybe we disagree on who is twisting what and how.

Peace.

I read the court's decision and Al does not come off very well.

Thanks, GLarson!  It's been a rough year with some awful family stuff, but I lived though it- if you call this livin'.  Sorry to revive such an old thread for a personal thing but I really wanted to respond to such a gracious post.