The Smiley Smile Message Board

I posted a review of the Saratoga, CA concert in the reviews section. But something has haunted me since I saw them last week.

I did see the Beach Boys 4 times from 1975 thru 1979. Didn't see them since then. So coming back after 30 years and seeing them again was interesting.

I know Brian would be on and off touring with the band, so when Brian didn't play with them it was still "The Beach Boys" of course.

But now, things seem different.

Brian is playing on his own and touring and playing plenty of Beach Boys songs. So this isn't because he is afraid or messed up and not touring which were the reasons before. He now is out touring, but isn't in the band for other reasons.

And Al Jardine is also touring and playing Beach Boys songs when he plays live.


So what was strange was seeing "The Beach Boys" but it was only Mike and Bruce. I know that Carl and Dennis are deceased, so replacing them is obviously understood. But is The Beach Boys really  "The Beach Boys" when it is only Mike and Brice when Al and Brian are alive and touring themselves and capbale of being in the band? Is  "The Beach Boys" a franchise or a real band?

That is what was odd for me and I keep thinking about it - as it kind of felt more like a Beach Boys cover band, knowing that Brian and Al could be playing with them and they are a critical part of the band. I have read that Brian and Al may join Mike and Bruce for a 50th year reunion and that to me would truly be "The Beach Boys. But should it be "The Mike Love Band"? or "Brice and Mike's band" vs. "The Beach Boys" when they play? Brian and Al don't use the name "The beach Boys" when they tour now, so why do Mike and Bruce?

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

As long as they have woodies, it's the Beach Boys.

In which case, Dennis was a Beach Boy 24/7.  ::)

 :lol :lol

What makes them the Beach Boys is 1) that they were a band who called themselves the Beach Boys and later (less objectively) 2) that each person has an individual (or shared) image of what s/he likes about the Beach Boys that is either met or not met by various incarnations or offshoots. It's entirely possible that your 1975-79 band that was the Beach Boys wouldn't have been to someone who, say, thought the Endless Summer-into-15BO era killed them.

Unanswerable question; too subjective. Dozens of definitive and purportedly objective responses are sure to follow. I hope for more name-calling, just to spice it up.

Also,


I think as it relates to the things you're talking about, franchise. But it is a real band making a living off of that franchise. "Real band" in the sense of those same guys (or at least those who aren't dead) getting together as equals (or even near equals) in a creative sense? Obviously not. But "real band" in terms of talented musicians going on stage almost every night playing high quality shows? Yes.

I guess I'm a Beach Boy then too! ::)

I used to wonder why other bands with few original members don't have this problem. The Allman Brothers, for example, are a seven-piece band with only three original members, two of them being the drummers. Two of the founding members, Duane Allman and Berry Oakley, both died in the 70s in separate motorcycle accidents. Another member, Dickey Betts, was forced out of the band and now tours with his own band, playing mainly Allman Brothers songs. Dickey wrote most of the band's hits, including "Blue Sky", "Jessica", "Ramblin' Man", et cetera.

But you know what the difference is? The Allman Brothers are still releasing albums. A studio album was released in 2003 with new songs written with newer members of the band, and a few live albums have been released since as well. Additionally, they improvise/jam a lot live and so even the old songs are "new" due to the different musicians playing on them.

But the Beach Boys live band more or less attempt to duplicate the studio arrangements of songs from the 1960s (I'm not saying I think they should jam), and haven't released a real album in 17 years (one week ago today in 1992). I don't think they're actually allowed to do this by the license, but they should at least release a live album.

Well, legally (as I pointed out on another thread), any group with Mike is the Beach Boys.  That's what the courts/BRI have stated.

Morally...there are five original/authentic Beach Boys alive today (Blondie and Ricky haven't exactly insisted on cementing their place in Beach Boys history).

That said, to me, you need three Beach Boys to call yourselves The Beach Boys.  If Al or Dave were in the fold with Mike and Bruce, that's more than half, and therefore The Beach Boys.  While I love the current touring lineup, it irks me to call them The Beach Boys, to be honest.  I always hope Dave shows up to guest to make it "right."

Over the last several years when they have been here in KC, they always play at the same casino. Every time I walk in the place and it says The Beach Boys on the marque in big bold letters I say to myself, no it isn't! But 95% of the concertgoers think it must be, it says so. I subscribe to the no Wilsons/no Beach Boys concept. This was especially true after Carl died and the BB showed up here for a festival and there was no Al Jardine. That was the end of The Beach Boys for me. Sept. 1998. Although I still go to the shows when possible, it is with a casual observer approach rather than the fan I used to be. The Brian shows have always been special since The Hard Rock Vegas gig in The Joint in 1999. His coming out, so to speak. The one BB Family and Friends show I saw was definitely another special event. The Beach Boys were sort of close to me last week and I did not go. My family was surprised.

Aegir- apologies to everyone, I'm gonna get off topic- interesting comparison. I'm almost as big an Allman Brothers fanatic over the last few years as I am for the Beach Boys. And incidentally, my last address in college was on Hillcrest in Macon, Georgia, just a few blocks short of where Duane was killed (his last turn was right in front of my house).  I had a conversation with Dave Marks last Sunday about Duane (and Dave brought up Berry as well).  He saw them twice in about 1970 in Boston, and said Duane was "the best there ever was, period"- in specific reference to slide playing, I think.

For fans of Gregg and blues guitar, here's the very best clip on YouTube- just stunning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T75YklbUXj8

Make sure you hear the bridge.

But only up to the point in time when the Term of the existing Licence Agreement expires, or is renewed.

What if Brian or Al, or a combination of Brian and Al applied to BRI for the licence agreement when it comes up for renewal?

There are actually a number of possible sceanarios when the Licence is up for renewal. Bruce or David could apply, partnerships involving all surviving members are possible, or what if, in a purely money spinning effort by BRI it was decided to grant the licence to the highest bidder and that bidder came from outside the Beach Boy's camp? In a commercial world it is possible, it is even possible that BRI might decide to split territories and licence separate bands to be the "Beach Boys" in Europe, the USA, Australia/Asia, etc. ... such possible scenarios reduce "The Beach Boys" to a piece of paper in a lawyer's draw ... it is possible and at the moment only the goodwill of "The Beach Boys" name stops it from being so.

Tony, that sums it up (rather depressingly) from a legal standpoint, and that's one way to look at it. Legally, part of the Beach Boys' definition for stage purposes once included at least one Wilson as a provision. Now there's only one Wilson.

I got crossways with another poster recently for saying that I thought the sound was pretty much all Brian, and I probably expressed that badly.  I do value all the contributions of the other guys, quite a lot- particularly Mike's lyrics, which set a lot of the tone. Brian created most of the magic- to me, in my opinion only- but it's definitely infused in those guys in numerous ways.

For me, I guess, the Beach Boys can only exist in the studio when there's at least two Wilsons to go with some combination of four others- Marks, Love (essential), Jardine, Johnston. For stage purposes, when I saw bands live that consisted of one Wilson- Carl, plus Mike, Bruce, and Al they certainly seemed and sounded enough like Beach Boys to me.

But for studio purposes, after 12-83 they became the Beach Boys* (Without Dennis) to me, and in 2-98 that ended as well.  The band was over. I've never bothered to own Summer In Paradise because that isn't really quite a Beach Boys record, to me.

So reunions, to me, are fine if they're stuff like the monument dedication and the Capitol roof get-together.  Seeing Dave Marks there means the most to me.  But I don't think any more musical magic is obtainable, especially from the remaining voices.

Using that logic, there are a few songs on Pet Sounds that aren't the Beach Boys, because there's only one Wilson on them. Is any of the band (including Brian) on Let's Go Away For Awhile? There are some tracks on Summer in Paradise that include Carl, Mike, Bruce, and Al.

I had thought of that long before I posted it.  It's really not logic, you're giving me too much credit. I don't mean in the sixties.  Brian was once able to create enough of that vibe largely on his own- for me, in my opinion only.  Even so, Pet Sounds as an album had plenty of presence from the other guys and seems like the Beach Boys.  "Let's Go Away" feels enough like the Beach Boys to me, because it's in that context- same as "Summer Means New Love", and I don't know who played on that off the top of my head.

On the other end of the spectrum Keepin' The Summer Alive, for whatever else can be said about that album, still seemed enough like the Beach Boys to me- and that's what this thread is about, pretty intutitive in nature- but the '85 album had an asterisk by it in my mind.  Even though Dennis is almost equally absent from both. Muddy enough for ya?  ::)

So if the license for the name "Beach Boys" ends with Mike Love using it and Brian Wilson then bought it and he toured - would that be a better usage of the "Beach Boys" name?

Why does Mike Love get to call his band The Beach Boys and Brian Wilson doesn't??

Brain doesn't want to be a Beach Boy, Mike does.

Wasn't that band known as  the Golden Cocksmen?

Golden Penetrators, was it?

1975, Aegir is correct, but more specifically, BRI or whatever's the name of the entity that controls the name and trademark bestows the title on whomever they like.  Kind of like "Maharishi", apparently.  They curently licence it to Mike.

So in theory, they could revoke the title and make Mike give up the belt, and (for example) hire the two Kid 'N' Play guys to be the Beach Boys, officially.  Mike could then be traded to the Baha Men for a couple of minor leaguers, and Bruce to N'Sync for a future draft pick. That would (again) leave custody of Al to the courts. It's the same legal concept that allows Sherwood Schwartz to hire a variety of different Jan Bradys, as the mood strikes.

Revoke? No not unless Mike was in breach of the terms and conditions of the licence agreement - at which time they could terminate the existing Agreement - other wise just wait until the Term of the existing Agreement lapses. That said the best Jan Brady was the psycho chick with the swinging hair in the first "remake" movie - could we remake Mike with long hair? ... all of it long, not just the extreme edges ........... (photoshop anyone?)