The Smiley Smile Message Board

I would imagine some of you have noticed that THREE separate factions of Beach Boys entities are all performing in California tonight, Sept 27th. Brian and Al at the Vina Robles Amphiteatre in Paso Robles, Mike and Bruce at the Festival of The Arts in Laguna Beach, and David Marks with the Surf City All-Stars at the Lobster Festival in Redondo Beach. I guess it's entirely possible they could all be playing the same song at the exact same moment which to me seems...weird. I know some people will say, hey it's a positive...people all over the state can enjoy the Beach Boys tonight. Cool! Yeah, well, maybe on one level it is. But part of me feels like this is an example of how the Beach Boys "brand" or the Beach Boys legacy continues to dilute and confuse people. "I'm going to see the Beach Boys tonight...in Paso"..."No, the Beach Boys are playing in Laguna"...ummm...wait..."I'm seeing one of the founding Beach Boys tonight in Redondo"..."no the original guys are playing Laguna"..."uh uh...the genius behind the music is playing Paso"..."But wait the lead singer is playing in Laguna"...My brain just exploded.

Memo to Beach Boys...get the F back together and be the best band you can.

Right on, Jon.



Although I wish I had the extravagant 'problem' of living in California and being uncertain who the 'real' Beach Boys are, or where to go. :P For those who attend any of the shows - have fun!!

Could not agree more with John. The Professor said this yesterday in the thread on Dave's interview, so I woke up feeling this exact thought.....

I go to Redondo all the time just to walk and listen to the BB and sing in the wind. Can't see any of the shows tonight--just failed to sign up for the Lobster Fest....

feeling wistful and lost, and I hope the Boys perceive the irony of today and, frankly, feel some of the alienation that could motivate them to find each other again....

Obviously there are problems with Mike and Brian and Mike and Al, but Dave would be welcome at either show, right?

I live in California, within driving distance of all three shows. I briefly thought about going to Brian and Al's, but in the end I'm going to none of them. Not a matter of money or time, just not motivated enough. Now if they were all playing in one stage together?  Come on, you wouldn't be able to keep me out of the front row

There's the (almost)perfect solution! 
Since they can't/won't play together, they should book events where they're all on the same bill, then see which band can blow the others off the stage!

There was a time where they kind of did that. I saw The Beach Boys and Chicago at The Spectrum in Philadelphia in 1989. Right in the middle of The Beach Boys' set, Brian Wilson and makeshift band was introduced. So Brian comes out and performs a three song set and then he's gone. I swear a large majority of the audience had no idea what they were seeing or how historical (at that time) it was. During the joint (Chicago and BB) encore, Brian popped up, way at the back of the stage, just kind of wandering around and not really singing or playing anything. Very strange but exciting evening.

Here's to hoping they'll realize that someday soon.

I don't think it's a "they," really. I think it's a "he."

It's ALL of them. They need to get their sh*t together. I live within proximity of two of the Brian/Al shows and I ain't going either. This Summer there were three venues that The Beach Boys played at that were within reach - two were within 25 miles of my house. Hell no, I won't go. Like Southbay suggests, when they all get back together on the same stage, I'm there.

This is a perfect example of why the C50 Reunion Tour was commercially and critically successful to a degree that the Beach Boys brand has not experienced in a long time, because it's simply better than any of the lesser alternatives. And that's not to say the rest isn't good or even great, ...but C50 was as good as it gets in the now. This weekend's "California Pile Up" has me feeling nostalgic for the C50 BB's.

Uh, yep. This weekend just depresses me. What could be...

Wow, Brian Wilson, yes Brian Fucking Wilson is playing near you and you are not going. That blows my mind! I now need a drink!

I would never pass that up.... :P

"set end date"    :lol

We need Dennis. He would bang some heads together until everyone sees some sense. :lol

Right on, Lowbacca!  I'd love it if a 3 way BB rumble was happening in my town - as opposed to the once every 5 year stadium appearance.

But yeah, as per Jon, get back together, BB people, like immediately.

How about Southbay drive to Dave's show, Mikie drive to Mike and Bruce's show, lure them away with some kind of smoke story and then drive them over to Brian and Al's show.

Actually, Carl would have taken care of it. Had he lived, Mike would not not have been able to pull his power plays over the years. There would not have been the fracture that materialized after his death.

And the C50 shows would never have felt as important or happened the same way, so....

Totally.  For the sake of their legacy, not to mention interest and support from the public, these guys really need to get back together again.

I think you're right, Doc.

If they pay any attention to this board I hope they see this thread.   all of them and their wives and managers.  I f this bunch is passing on this conjunction of shows, they are LOSING their primary hard core fans and supporters.  Absolutely no reason why Brian, Al and David can't join in on the Beach Boys show for a predetermined number of dates per tour.  Sure, BW doesn't want to tour much, just do it when he does do it with THE BEACH BOYS!  WTF would be wrong with that???

Well, this is what I was saying right after C50, when all of the "Well, Brian doesn't tour as much as Mike does, etc, etc…" excuses were being bandied about.

There is a way for everyone to get what they want. Reserve the Beach Boys name for the full group, including Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce and David. Run this group like C50 and book the bigger venues that were offered, but do fewer shows a year. License out the "Beach Boys Touring Band" as a smaller outfit that Mike and Bruce can take to the State Fairs and do the fun in the sun shows.  Make sure the booking information indicates that there are two distinct configurations of the same band, hire a manager to handle scheduling and contracts for both groups. It's bound to be less confusing than what we have now,  everyone gets to be Beach Boys their way, and instead of all of this bickering, they can finish with dignity and style.

Unfortunately there are a number of reasons. Some good, some bad, some important, some trivial...but cumulatively enough to ensure that it doesn`t happen.

Indeed. It is also quite simple:

C50 = The Beach Boys
all the rest = not The Beach Boys

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts

What would be neat is if all three touring bands happen to be playing at the exact same time on the same day, and all three happen to hit the bass vocal break of Help Me Rhonda (bow bow bow bow...) at the *exact* second, right on the same downbeat, from three different stages.

This could trigger a cosmic time-space event which would see Mike begin adjusting Bruce's mic stand as Bruce launches into "Love And Mercy" from his keyboard, David and his band start playing "Pisces Brothers", and Brian and Al back off the mics and start tearing up "Pipeline" with Al taking the surf guitar lead and Brian ripping into the electric piano solo.

Hey, we can dream, right?  :lol

I dunno; I agree that the 50th lineup was the ideal, but I'd have considered the Jones Beach lineup that never quite was -- Mike, Bruce, Al, David, plus Jeff, Scott, and John from the 50th band -- to be the Beach Boys too.  Just like all the other years where Brian stayed home while The Beach Boys went on tour.

Mike/Al/David/Bruce is a viable a touring Beach Boys as Mike/Al/Carl/Bruce was.  With Jeff thrown into the mix, that group would be to "Radio" what Mike/Al/Carl/Bruce/Dennis was to "Beach Boys Today" or "Pet Sounds" -- everyone but Brian, a perfectly viable set of messengers.

And the reason why *that* lineup didn't happen is a whole other can of worms which no one seems to have dared open yet...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

C50 was the definition of synergistic. The whole was substantially greater than the sum of the parts.

Starting to think 2012 might have been a mass hallucination.

Only the fact that my 2-y-o is potty training reminds me that it was all very real.

The C50 tour was great but imo it shouldn`t overshadow how good us fans have it at the moment.

If anyone had said in 1998 that Brian in 2014 would be about to release a new CD of original songs and would be touring with Al then people would have been thrilled.

If anyone had said that Mike and Bruce would have the calibre of band that they have, that they would play a fair few rarities and would leave the cheerleaders at home then jaws would have dropped.

Good times...

I’m glad some fans can keep telling themselves that. I really wish I could. I take a very measured approach of course. It’s awesome these guys are still alive and still doing stuff. It could be worse, no question.

Brian still being active is great. That he lets Al tag along is cool. Though it’s a bummer that two years into their post-C50 work together, Al isn’t really featuring heavily in Brian’s projects. We don’t know how much of Al’s studio work (if any) will be on Brian’s new album, and by Al’s own admission he’s very much just a sideman at the live shows and doesn’t have any input into the setlists.

Mike has essentially over the years finally luckily stumbled into kind of a “mini” version of Brian’s backing band, in that he finally in the last 6-7 years has been lucky enough to get an uber-nerd Beach Boys guy (Totten) to spearhead getting his band sounding good, an energetic drummer, and recently landed one of Brian’s own band members.

But all these are lesser articles, as much as we try to talk ourselves into how “awesome” thing still are.

Mike’s show features seemingly an hour or more of non-Beach Boys singing leads.

That Brian is still heading live shows is impressive in and of itself, but he seems to thrive more when others take some of that load off. He has Al to do this to some degree now, and he gives a few leads (not an hour’s worth) to backing band members. But when it’s other actual BB’s taking that load off his shoulders, that’s when it really works.

Al on his own can’t seem to muster whatever it is he needs to in order to do something substantial on his own. He owns his own freaking studio, but in a recent interview says he’s not the type of guy who spends a lot of time in the studio. Wtf? Give your tapes to some other guy and let them compile it and put another album out. Other than the one unique gig earlier this year in New York, he can’t seem to get any live tours or even individual shows together outside of booking fairs and festivals with his “Endless Summer Band” or the “Surf City All Stars.” That even those bands, usually playing short hits-filled sets, are hard to track down and see is even sadder.

We should definitely be grateful that these guys are still alive and kicking and, in some cases, offering fans some enjoyable new things. But the C50 tour isn’t obscuring any of this. C50 brought a lot of things into deep focus. The tragic irony is that the deep focus offered the band two very different, divergent paths. The path of staying together would have reaped SO much more enjoyment for fans. The thing is, especially with these guys, things go in cycles. I think, if time weren’t an issue, they would almost surely at SOME point get over their bull***t enough (again) to do another reunion project. But thus far, David Marks is the only guy willing to actually say in an interview that one or more of these guys might croak before that can happen.

If they had all retired and didn’t profess any desire to keep doing music, then this wouldn’t be an issue. But into their 70’s, they seem to want to continue making music in some form or another, and Beach Boys music at that. They all prop each other up and make each other look better when they do things together.

I realize this is probably more about personal philosophy than anything to do with the Beach Boys. Some folks get their finger chopped off and just lament it and complain. Some immediately point out how much worse it could have been. I kind of do both. Ouch, that hurts, and getting my finger chopped off sucks. Okay, take a step back, and now I realize that there are indeed so many things to be grateful for. It could have been MUCH worse. But as much of a lazy ass as I am, even I can’t *always* get by on “things could be worse.”

"Can't get by on things could be worse".  We'll said and applicable to so many things, at times.

Wasn't it established a few days ago that during a recent interview with Al that he stated the Brian/Al concert setlist would represent various eras of Beach Boys music? But as we saw from the night before last, that wasn't the case at all. Just a real easy greatest hits gig for all of those involved.

Yeah, Al mentioned that as well. Besides probably not even being super familiar with what year which song comes from, I think he's just guessing what Brian's band will pick. It was an interview just a few days ago where he specifically said he isn't consulted on the set list and just shows up in support of Brian.

I would imagine at best that if he suggested one specific song, they might add it. On top of that, they're only doing these one-off gigs where it's harder to vary the set list. If or when they do a "full tour", I would imagine we'll get a more diversified set list.

I do hear your point, HeyJude.  For me, it's not so much "it could be worse," but I do have a feeling of gratitude that we have already received more than I ever expected.

I agree C50 was a magical time...a new Beach Boys album and a tour with surviving members, glorious harmonies...all better than could have been expected.  And for that I am grateful.  Few of us expected such an impressive "reunion" album and tour.  I do also recall that "Summer's Gone" was initially intended to be the last musical word on the Beach Boys' illustrious recording career, and the tour was supposed to be "one last time."  But Brian later changed his mind, nasty comments were made in the press....and here we are, still talking about it 2 years later.

To me, the amazing thing is that it happened at all, considering all that had transpired among these guys in the past, and that it was as good as it was.    How long could it realistically have stayed together, given these individuals -- their varying viewpoints about what "real" Beach Boys compositions should be, what touring should look like, agreement on the setlist and weighting of the Beach Boys' catalog and legacy, and of course their different personalities and often contentious history?   And yes, also given the people around them, the ones they themselves have chosen for their specific personal and professional roles.

Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?  In 2012, it seemed so.  But it was not without tension, and it's hard for me to see how that could have been sustained very long, or often.  If it did stay together, how long could the quality have been maintained?  Is it a waste that we have two or more outfits doing BB greatest hits shows rather than one killer group?  Possibly.  But my hope is that Brian's shows will soon feature new Brian Wilson material.

I confess my preference is to hear new Brian Wilson music.  While I love their vocal blend, if I have to choose between a "reunited" Beach Boys touring with no new material/new material with heavy Mike Love input (as he would likely insist), or Brian Wilson creating new music that he wants to create, I'll choose the latter.  When these guys hang it up, the concerts will be only memories while the recordings will be permanent.  I'm grateful for what we have, but I selfishly want to hear as much new music as Brian wants to give us.

I totally understand most fans prefer to see them together, and I especially sympathize with those who didn't get to experience C50 in all its glory.  But wanting them to stay together almost seems like requiring them to be different people.  

Sorry but I have to query the, `I’m glad some fans can keep telling themselves that` comment. Keep telling themselves what? The truth.  ;)

The current situation of the band members should be judged on what it is rather than what it`s not. Normality since 1998 has been for these guys to be touring separately. The C50 tour was the anomaly and I haven`t seen any of the members say that they thnk it could have become a yearly thing.

The situation at the moment is reminiscent of a couple going on a dream holiday to the Seychelles for a fortnight but then complaining for the next 50 weeks that their everyday life doesn`t measure up to it. Makes you wonder if they would have been happier if they hadn`t had that great experience in the first place...  ;)

The thing this fan kept telling himself, when he got into this stuff around 1999-2000, was that where we were at around then was likely to be the status quo from there on out.  Mike and Bruce driving a rickety jukebox round the country.  Al on the outs with everybody, with a sharp veteran group which only gets booked for a couple of shows a year.  Brian backed by a crackerjack band, but in fragile voice and looking like a deer in headlights on stage.  David who?  No new material from anyone on the horizon, Brian's last album an adult-contemporary disappointment.  Smile locked in the vaults, likely never to emerge.

Compared to that... with Smile and TSS and Made in California and TLOS and Postcard and Radio on my shelf, with a rejuvenated Mike&Bruce band, David playing with both groups, Brian way more comfortable and Al regularly sitting in, with a really surprising new album and biopic to look forward to, and everything from the C50 tour to where-did-that-come-from moments like Brian, Al, Dave, and Blondie rocking out with Jeff Beck...  where's the bit where my finger got chopped off, again?  Musta missed it...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

More like having a terrific meal in a restaurant only to return to find it's closed.

Heh, or returning to the Seychelles to find they've been dynamited for road stone.

Sadly, I don't think dignity and style are a priority for at least some band members.

By my rough reckoning, that's two-thirds of a standard GH show, or looked at another way, some 12 to 18 songs. Care to list said titles, with vocalists ?

+1.

I'm not saying that some of the complaints about the fallout from the C50 tour, among other issues, aren't valid, but I do think that it's important not to let these obscure the fact that all of the surviving Beach Boys have given us a lot more the last 10 years than most of us would have conceived possible.

I remember thinking the same thing back in '99, when the three touring configurations (Mike-Bruce-Dave, Brian, Al's F&F) were all playing simultaneous gigs (not in the same state, though). I envisioned all three singing "Wouldn't it be nice, if we were older" at the exact same time. I envisioned it as another episode of their ongoing soap opera, with the scene cutting from one to another to another and back, over and over through the whole song.
Wow...to think this fractured situation has been the norm in all the years since (with one nearly year-long exception) is ALSO weird!

I could talk for days about what a missed opportunity the reunion was. And there was one way to keep it going without any of the issues that dragged it down: VEGAS.

A Vegas residency would've been massive. Not long runs, maybe four or five three-week blocks and summers off to do major North American shows, while hitting places they've never been -- Russia, China, etc. Had a permanent manager been in place, that kind of deal could've lined the pockets and dictated the terms of how it proceeded. A permanent manager would've also realized that playing two nights at Madison Square Garden -- and all that means and the press it would generate -- would do more for the brand than five area shows for as many people in different venues. The bottom line is, due to security, costs, fees, no one makes money playing the Garden. Bands often tag extra shows onto their itinerary to pay for MSG. A manager looking into the long run would've seen that and had them do it. Although there's nothing wrong with sheds, venues like MSG, Wembley, and RAH take it to the next level.

As far as the "set date schtick" -- ANYONE who works in the business knows that those October M&B dates could've been bought off in a nano-second either financially or with a new deal with the full act. Whatever anyone says about Mike Love -- no promoter has any problem with him. His revue shows up and makes money all around. Always has. Mike Love's team calling a promoter and saying, "So we need to make a change. . . " is met with "What do you need for us to make this work?"

That the reunion ended so early and so messily before the REAL MONEY was earned has made The Beach Boys the laughing stock of many of the players I know in the concert industry. As one person told me at the time: "These guys are f***king 80 and they allow bullshit to get between them and real money? They've learned NOTHING."

In five months The Beach Boys went from being Frankie Valli to being The Rolling Stones and -- due to bullsh it -- back to Frankie Valli again.

I`m not sure we can say it ended that early can we. Messily certainly but not early exactly.

The idea of them doing Vegas is interesting but I don`t really see how it solves all, `of the issues that dragged it down`.

Howie, you seem to have all the answers here, so if what you say is true, then what would motivate Mike to not keep this going beyond 2012? Is Mike trading making major $ to keep control? Is making less $ worth it not to have to deal with Al & Brian and their management? We know these guys love money, so to give all of that up, there must be some major, heavy-duty issues going on. I mean, in the real world a lot of us put up with less than ideal circumstances in order to make a decent living. We make that decision to put up with the extra bullshit in order to make the big dollars.

April to September is early. One North American leg with no return visits to secondary markets is early. For a massively promoted reunion tour with a Top Three LP that is ALL early. Las Vegas would be a lot of money, the terms would be strictly dictated, and Mike Love wouldn't have to deal with Brian's management as an ongoing force. Once the casinos are involved it changes from being on tour to "'working Vegas." It's a very tight well-oiled and lucrative machine that has zero room to fall prey to the things that made C50 fall apart (e.g. the irreconcilable differences between Mike & Jacqui Love and Melinda Wilson.)

Additionally. . .

To specifically answer your question drbeachboy -- I think that after 50 years, no amount of money was worth it for Mike to not be in control of his "destiny."
I think that the truth of the matter is that Mike Love does not want anyone to dictate how he goes about doing his job. I also believe that "Brian" -- be it his problems of yore, or his team -- has always been, and always will be, a major issue with Mike Love. Period.

Once Brian is involved it's a whole other game and a whole other force involved. Would an LP of 12 Wilson/Love (and others) songs helped the situation -- ABSOLUTELY.
I'm not alone in thinking that Mike could've been a far bigger presence on the TWGMTR LP. I'm of the mind that had he been given access to Brian to do what HE constituted as their reunion (two guys and a piano and a bag full of songs) things would've been much different -- I think we'd be happier as fans, too. But the bottom line is that this thing came together so quickly (with bumps in the road threatening to capsize it along the way) that the train kept moving to get from LP to opening night. Joe Thomas has his critics, but whatever you think of the guy -- he got it done and on the road.

I have to say, in dealing with major artists and big time publicists for said acts, the PR for the 50th could not have been better. It was TOP NOTCH. The coverage, the WAY they were covered -- it was brilliant. I would've loved to have seen how THAT aspect evolved as a true "reunion" went forward.

Just to clarify Howie...

Are you saying that there were concrete offers on the table for the things that style of touring that you are advocating? And have any band members indicated to you that this was a possibility and that they (some of them at least) would have wanted to follow this path?

But isn't the main point that those sort of things *weren't* being pursued because of a lack of management? I think the band members mentioned a few other big offers for later in the year, mainly in Brian's LA Times letter. But I don't think there is a suggestion that there was an offer on the table for a Vegas residency (and if there was, then that obviously makes them look even more like idiots). I think the idea is that their lack of ability to either be more unified or at least pursue management that will keep them more unified from a business perspective has dictated they don't have management that will pursue offers for things like a Vegas run, and don't have the type of networked industry management that would be getting offers.

If the word in the industry is that the BB's don't have their s**t together, that probably doesn't help either. And Howie is right, as much as people want to play that populist card and all of that and talk about how the audience at the Cleveland Rib Cook Off is what's *truly* important, for whatever an "industry" reputation is worth, the BB's have been seen as a second tier act for years (albeit a solid, known commodity that still brings money in), then got a HUGE boost in perceived and real reputation for C50, and then shot it all to fudge when they very publicly looked like industry newbies that didn't have their s**t together.

The group needs not only a good manager who knows what they're doing and can keep everybody happy. They need someone from the OUTSIDE, someone INDEPENDENT. One of the problems has long been that when they do get someone who is seemingly a manager type, that manager is brought in by a particular person, and/or has either a perceived or true bias towards specific members, if not their own personal motives. That's the difference between, say Allen Klein and Neil Aspinall.

There is surely an Aspinall/Geurcio type out there that could do these things for the band. As Howie has alluded to, even if you strip away all the morals and ethics and warm fuzzies and just look at the cold hard cash, while it may be true Mike could have made less on C50 than he did during a year of his own touring, they surely could have continued making even MORE money had they kept the reunion going. They could have been making more money for doing less work. Still playing to millions, raking in the cash, and having even more time to do their own solo albums, or group albums, or side projects, or even more corporate gigs on the side, or whatever.

I'm not saying that.
No one has told me that an offer was made.

I DO KNOW that there were people in the touring industry seriously watching the reunion to see if it had legs, and expressed to me that if it DID, the band could've struck up a major deal with one of the majors in Vegas -- is any of that definite, no. But the person who told me has years of experience with acts in the major casinos. Ultimately, people beyond us were waiting and watching to see if this thing would implode (would someone back out due to illness or just not be able to keep it together) -- we know how that played out.

But Vegas has always been an option for them, and I believe that it was Carl who was against it -- might be remembering that wrong, though.
I wouldn't be surprised that IF this thing ever happens again it takes place in that environment.
(Which means everyone can kiss their dreams of a live BB PET SOUNDS show goodbye immediately.)

I do recall that there were some articles/interviews mentioning that the list of reasons for Carl's 1981 departure included casino gigs (probably not one of the main reasons). I also recall that it was mentioned that one of his conditions for coming back in 1982 was that no more casino gigs would be booked beyond what was already scheduled when he rejoined.

I'd have to consult the "In Concert" book to be sure, but I'm pretty sure within a few years they were doing casino gigs again.

But it's also worth noting that doing an extended residency in Las Vegas in 2014 is in many ways a far different experience (for both performer and audience) compared to doing a week at Ceasar's Palace in 1980. It's "perceived" as far less tacky these days. The main thing that is probably somewhat similar is that it often (but not always) calls for a shorter setlist. But when you're a Celine Dion-type fixed residency in Las Vegas, I think there's more leeway to do whatever show you want to do.

in regards to money --

I just want to add, that THE WHO, for example, keep their brand alive and frequently tours -- like "The Beach Boys" -- but they also play high profile gigs like the Super Bowl and the Olympics.

Now, no one is going to to be hiring the BB's for the Super Bowl -- but the Olympics is a PERFECT venue for the band's music. These events result in HUGE sales spikes (look at the numbers they got during the gig on QVC). Stuff like that sells product and makes money -- it's not just money for gigs that we're talking about. But the Olympics only happens with the full band. Mike and Bruce and/or BAD&B don't cut it. 

I lay you odds that in 3 years time the BEATLES' solo catalogues (between '70 and '75, at least) are meshed together in an effort to keep that music sellable.
It's about promotion. Getting airplay. Selling product. Royalties, mechanicals -- there's obscene money being lost by the minute.

Already tiny steps are being taken in that direction:
http://www.thebeatles.com/news/4-free-itunes-ep-solo-brilliance-john-paul-george-ringo

I completely agree that the band have needed a manager (or maybe even dictator) for about 40 years but I seriously doubt there is a person alive who could fill that role now.

I think it was Timothy White who said that even back in the mid-70s it was obvious when observing them that they were 5 very disparate people who all had their own ideas of what they wanted to do. If you add on all of the lawyers, wives, managers, publicists etc. that are around the band then I think it would be impossible for any manager to satisfy all of these people and be seen as completely impartial.

Obviously The Beatles have had a manager unifying things but that job is probably a heck of a lot easier when the band aren`t still touring 100 dates a year (and aren`t all borderline insane of course  ;) ).

A no brainer.


http://beatleyearsandbeyond.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/The-Beatles-Green-Album-1971-1974-Front-Cover-22212.jpg

http://www.freecovers.net/preview/1/290d51d2ebc944b9bb61da2a859e1265/big.jpg

Which Olympics?

I think you’re taking Howie’s suggestions too literally. It’s not as though a single Olympics show would save their career, or that there has to be an ironclad, standing offer to a Vegas residency. It’s more like: Here’s a running list of a bunch of stuff they should have or could have done had their had their s**t together, and it would have all resulted in tons of synergy or whatever one wants to call it. Better management means more touring, which means high profile booking (Olympics, Grammys, whatever), which leads to more sales, which leads to more touring, which all leads to more money. The longer it lasts, the more “Mike Love actually isn’t a d**k” articles we would start seeing, and so on.

But Howie is right, Mike is so trained on doing his own thing, I don’t know if the richest, brightest, sharpest concert promoter of all time could convince him to do something else. Read the scattered articles and books and interviews that get into the band’s mid-late 90’s run. If those are to be believed, Mike put a LOT of effort and leg work into arranging everything just right so he could run the thing the way he wanted, with or without any other Beach Boys. So look at that amount of effort back in the late 90’s, couple that with 15 years of not having to answer to anyone, then add to it that he now has tried a “reunion” and clearly disliked many elements of it, and it seems pretty difficult to dream up a scenario where they’re going to convince Mike to “do it again.” The best bet is probably another short-term tour (probably shorter than C50), possibly an album, where Mike can just pop in and out and get the things he wants out of them (publicity, writing with Brian, etc.).

Otherwise, the only way things are going to change in reference to the full band is if Brian and Al make a strong play to reassess the trademark/licensing situation. But the clock is ticking concerning their age and longevity, and I would venture to guess that even if Brian, Al, and Carl’s estate all agreed to change the assignment of the license, it could be challenged (however legitimately or frivolously) and get tied up in court for several years.

Howie spelled it out in terms of booking, demand, etc. Across the entertainment industry, there is and always has been a sense of "strike while the iron is hot", and as the summer rolled into fall in 2012 the Beach Boys as an in-demand touring act were holding as hot of an iron as they had held for decades. There was demand for more gigs, not just more gigs but gigs on the level of if not greater than the venues they had already been playing that summer. The press was great, the returns were great, the tour was placed that year among the most successful in the industry. For all the behind the scenes details going on, the Beach Boys were as marketable as a touring live show as they had been for decades.

They could have leveraged that demand into something beyond September 2012, and the booking agents and venues were calling.

But, the choice was made.

Again on something Howie mentioned regarding booking acts, consider the old Johnny Carson show, at least up to 1990 or so. If a "new" comedian went on Carson's show and killed with their routine, to the point where Johnny was either cracking up at his desk or even to the point where Johnny would break from the script and invite this unknown comedian over to the desk to talk, that comedian's career changed instantly. And the way it changed was that his or her agent would immediately be hit with calls from venues all over the country wanting to sign contracts to appear, and book gigs "while the iron was hot".

That comedian who may have been ready to do one-nighters at 150-seat clubs at various suburban outposts off the beaten path would now be fielding offers to play Vegas, to come to LA to meet with a network or film producers, getting offers to open for a major arena tour or traveling show...well beyond playing a Wednesday night comedy revue at "Mr. Ha Ha's" in Boise.

Consider when those offers came in, after cracking up Carson or whatever the case, those earlier bookings could and would be bought out just as Howie said regarding similar smaller-to-midsize bookings in the music biz. Unless they were literally mad, no working comedian would turn down a two-week stretch in Vegas or a string of network meetings in LA out of loyalty to play a small club in Anywhere, USA that had been booked months in advance. Loyalty doesn't pay the bills. Striking while the iron is hot and leveraging that publicity, especially after making Johnny Carson double over in laughter during your television debut, is what makes money.

Just consider the choices made as C50 was making waves in the industry and leading to more high-profile offers to play various venues, and that is the head-scratcher for me.

Well the idea of them having a manager figure who could please everyone is great in theory. But it just hasn`t been a part of the group`s world for many decades and it is not going to start happening now.

Obviously if the group had stayed together then they would have had more power and could have played more prestigious gigs. But the same could be said for so many other acts. The Police, Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Monty Python etc. could all be making so much money if they were still together but...they are human beings.

Sure Mike wants to have things his own way. But that is one of the aspects that makes it so amazing that the C50 tour happened at all and that it was so successful.

Mike`s organization and Brian`s organization obviously have completely different ways of working and ideas about tour dates, venues, styles of touring, recording etc. The fact that they compromised on all of these things for a wonderful year should be seen as a positive.

The idea that they could have done this every year just isn`t realistic imo no matter who the manager is. The evidence for that being that history shows that the group are unmanageable.

I suspect that Mike has carefully, over the years,  honed the act he wants to have, just the way he likes it, with his band and concert management people serving his needs, step by step, tweaking contract riders  on an ongoing basis so Mike is happy and comfortable to continue touring without dealing with large numbers of egos and managers representing various people.
Call it what you will. 

Donald is 1000% correct.
And THAT is the bottom line.

The same Monty Python that was convinced to do a reunion and concert film earlier this summer to clear up their debts and make a shitload of money? Seemed to work ok for them and they even managed to handle the "Set end date" with a little bit of dignity.

Absolutely.

He is doing what he enjoys doing which is only natural.

Of course they handled the ending better. But the fact is they are not together anymore.

Now will their fans complain until the end of time that they should have continued together year after year? Or will they celebrate the fact that they reunited at all?

Time will tell...

Actually I think it would be better if just Eric Idle and Neil Innes toured as Monty Python.

Some fans might be off-put if some of the Python guys wanted to do more gigs and one guy didn't, while simultaneously going back out and booking shows as Monty Python. That's a different scenario than an announced "farewell" tour.

I'd pay big money to meet them backstage!! Though I would be upset if I didn't get a USB drive with 2 Monty Python skits...

It'd be worth it just to watch the inevitable huge fight over the Rutles and Spamalot.

How many years have those two been feuding now? Whew. (Footnote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErCQ9nQAglg )

Maybe Neil Innes and Al Jardine can do a tour together and compare notes! Nik Turner can open for them.

Apparently, Brian must be OK with the way things are going. We know how Al feels because he continues to embarrass himself in public with his whining, instead of discussing the issues behind closed doors. Do you have any evidence or indication at all that Brian is making a strong play - or any play - to reassess the trademark/licensing situation?

I don't think that Al is embarrassing himself by complaining publicly. He seems to level-headedly realize the lameness of the current situation, and who the primary culprit(s) are. I think he feels that he and Brian have suffered somewhat of an injustice. And do you think these guys actually are able to have proper adult communication skills? It's all passive aggressive moves, like Mike/Bruce not showing up at the C50 wrap party, etc.

I think if Al could discuss things behind closed doors (to any avail), he most certainly would. It certainly doesn't seem like Al has much option but to make his opinion known in public. Public opinion will probably largely be on his side in the end, and maybe Al hopes that things can possibly at some point shift things for the better by talking publicly. I certainly don't fault him for it. I don't think that most people would share your opinion that Al is publicly embarrassing himself.

Also - I cannot imagine that Brian or Al will ever make any kind of strong play to reassess the trademark/licensing situation. Mike's history of bullying legal tactics have probably scared off that from ever happening. Mike (I think) has much deeper pockets than Al (maybe in a similar ballpark as Brian?)... but either way, even if Brian/Al/Carl's estate were to be willing to give up their share of profits from M&B (unlikely), the bottom line is that it isn't worth it emotionally for a Brian in his 70s to get into a long protracted legal battle with Mike. And the legal fees would be crazy. And it would stretch on until they are all in their 80s. For that reason alone, it will never, ever happen, IMO.

Mike's actions imploding C50 were those of a frightened man, feeling threatened that he'd lose control; if he deemed it "worth it" to take the massive sh*tstorm of public fallout to get his M&B back and running, he proved right then and there that he will stop at nothing to keep M&B going at all costs, legal or otherwise. He's the BBs' Terminator. He will. not. stop. And all the other BBs know it.

No. If you've followed these discussions, I've pointed out many times that there are no indications any such play to change the trademark setup is in evidence. That was the point of my comment. The only way to get the status quo to change is something along those lines, and that seems highly unlikely. (There was a brief period in the mid-2000's where such a play *may* have been briefly bandied about, although it may have been floated without having any real intention of following through. I also wouldn't be surprised if the reference in Brian's 2012 LA Times letter to discussing things among the "shareholders" may have indicated that he considered taking such steps for maybe five minutes.)

However, as has also been discussed in threads on these topics, these guys are all about greys and dichotomies and dysfunction. Brian simultaneously votes for Mike to have the license (or, more accurately, apparently voted once in 1998 and since then has only acted by *not acting*), but there is also an adversarial quality to some degree. For instance, I doubt there was zero politics at play when Brian got three or four Beach Boys on his tour last year in the aftermath of the demise of C50. The situation is such that these guys vote one way, and on occasion say things or act a way in direct opposition to their own vote.

I don't think Brian is "OK" with the way things are now in regards to Mike using the trademark. But he doesn't care enough about it, or for long enough, and/or doesn't have the willingness to undergo the steps it would take to change that.

If Brian hadn't gone alone with Mike having an exclusive license back in 1998 and in effect pretty much washing his hands of the whole thing, it may have been exceedingly easier in 2012 to exercise leverage to keep the reunion going. Who knows....

But back to the main question. Not acting on the license situation doesn't mean those not acting are okay with the current setup. It could mean that. Or it could mean they don't have the power or votes or leverage to change it. Or they do, but it's not worth the time, effort, money, etc.

Al Jardine *did* appear in Innes' Rutles video for "Shangri La" in 1996 if I'm recalling correctly!

No, I don't think these guys actually are able to have adult communication.

I think Al is wasting his time and embarrassing himself by making his opinion known in public because Mike Love could care less what the public thinks about the current set-up/license. Al is too dumb to realize that. But, Al does indeed have another option which is by consulting with his attorneys. That's the only way for any change to come about.

I do agree in that I cannot imagine Brian or Al making any kind of strong play, In Al's case, he won't be able to get another voter to side with him. In Brian's case (I'm going to use "they" whether it bothers some or not), it's not Mike's "bullying tactics' that they are afraid of. Simply, they don't want to work with Mike (in the studio or on the road) and they don't want to give up that check which just keeps coming and coming.

And while this is a total rhetorical, semantic point, it's worth occasionally pointing out that there are a few guys in the music business who are honest about their motivations and will be honest and say they're old and stuck in their ways and don't want to have to answer to anybody.

I'd have a lot more respect if that was indeed the case with the BB's and the principles involved were honest about this and said so.

As I've often said, the Beach Boys are somewhat different than many other bands in that when other bands split or otherwise stop working together, they go off to solo gigs or other bands rather than having one member turn around and continue touring under the band's name the next day, leaving three other members who want to keep the entire band together in the dust.

Sadly, it would actually be less cruel irony if C50 had ended with everybody saying "F*** you!" and not wanting to work with any of each other. Then it would at least make more sense objectively why they couldn't keep it going.

Your first two paragraphs - I agree with you 100%. I don't agree with your last paragraph. I have learned - and call me naive - that people will show how meaningful and important something or someone is to them by their actions....or lack of. To me, it looks like it's not worth the time, effort, money, etc. And now I'm going back to work so I can make some money! :o

Al, whether or not it eventually "helps" his cause or not, is simply venting. And can you blame him? I cannot imagine what it must have been like to have been a bandmate with Mike Love for ~35+ years, and have things go down the way they did for Al, both in '98 and in '12. He's not perfect (nobody is), but I have lots of empathy for Al. Lots. I think he probably feels like he got sh*t on by an egomaniac. Those ain't kind words, but I'll bet that's precisely what he feels like inside.

And I think that Brian/Al would be down to work with Mike if it was with less demands by Mike. I think all the surviving members are willing to work with each other, but only the "versions" of each other that they find most fitting or comfortable to suit their own preference. I think Brian is down to work with a Mike who is a contributing member but not demanding all sorts of things. Where Mike can be utilized but outside collaborators are also part of the mix.  This is the way things were at varying points throughout the band's existence. And Mike wants a Brian who is willing to crank out hit after hit with Mike (proving Mike's essential importance) without outside interference.  This is also the way things were at varying points throughout the band's existence. But the people they want each other to be aren't the people they are today.

I know it's a popular expression and all, but can you actually embarrass yourself if you don't feel embarrassed about anything?

I too don't think Al is embarrassing himself at all. I feel bad for him. He isn't allowed to be a part of the band he helped create and spent decades of his life with. Brian and Mike have their own things going on and don't seem too bothered with Al's feelings or situation. Brian will let him tag along for shows but he doesn't even get any input in the set lists. Al has the best voice of the bunch, seems to be more level headed (along with Dave) and would improve Brian or Mike's shows by being part of it. It's a real shame Mike and Al don't get along. Think of how much stronger the touring "Beach Boys" would be with an original BB member singing leads on songs like WIBN, YSGTM, H&V, Help Me Rhonda, etc.

When occasionally people start jumping on Al as if he’s the bad guy in all of this, I always point to the evidence. Or rather, lack of evidence. The guy is comically impotent when it comes to anything to do with inner-band politics, lawsuits, and so on. I don’t think it would be out of line to call the guy sometimes kind of sad. But all of these interviews where he randomly vents; it’s just a mixture of not having much if any actual power in the group situation, mixed with a bit of whininess, mixed with a bit of lack of smoothness when it comes to PR. He’s not a power player in any of these scenarios, even when he “joins forces” with Brian. Look at Al’s own interviews. He shows up for the gig, has no input into the setlist. He basically just does his bit of a “Beach Boys” show in Brian’s show, only he has seemingly even less input than he would have during the 90’s with the Beach Boys.

If Al would cram all of the content of his typical interviews into the smooth PR package that Mike offers in his interviews, he could make his points more effectively, no question.

But I totally disagree with the idea that Al should just keep it all to himself and discuss this stuff behind closed doors. It’s likely, I would imagine, he gets into this stuff in interviews because it gets him nowhere trying to discuss it behind closed doors. Since exiting the touring group in 1998, Al has given more entertaining, informative interviews about both the history of the group and its present political structure than he ever did in previous years. It’s human nature, they end up feeling more liberated after the exit whatever situation. Mike did the same thing after C50. It was only afterwards that we heard about the backing band being too big, not having enough input into the album, and so on. Yes, Al’s interviews often have a few “Wtf?” moments. But I’ll take a few of those moments and I would rather have to do a bit of deciphering rather than reading another “set end date” interview.

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Maybe, it depends on how much of a problem he was to deal with back then.  I know nothing about what lead to his ouster, but I read the interview with Mike Love where talked about a group meeting with Howard Bloomfield, the psychiatrist, to air things out, and other comments from posters that suggest he was difficult.  Sometimes people say enough and move on.     

Carl had Al's back. Unfortunately, he checked out.

Can't remember when or where but was it Dennis or Carl that said "We're unmanageable."?

Nothings changed. :(

Exactly.

Maybe I've got my Eeyore head on too tight, but to my untutored mindset, Vegas, even these days means a shorter, meat & spuds GH setlist.

If Al was a Wilson, no matter how big a problem he was to deal with at the time (short of drug use/drinking to a point of near death), and he wanted to still be in the band, he'd have stayed in the band. I cannot fathom otherwise. Unless I'm seeing this wrong, it's very tough to view the timing of Al's outster as anything but opportunistic, and using someone's death as a chess piece of sorts.

C'mon... I think they'd have at least found a way to include the rarely (if ever?) played "Desert Drive" in the setlist ;)

I guess that shows you how different Carl Wilson and his brother, Brian Wilson, feel about the situation. Carl Wilson did have Al's back, and I guess you're speculating that he would've had Al's back today. But Brian doesn't?

And Carl's heirs? I'm assuming that they were/are aware that Carl had Al's back? Is that not important to them going forward, carrying out Carl's wishes/philosophy in having Al's back? Would their vote(s) be the answer to that question?

The power structure was different in 1997/1998 vs today, so it's pretty much a moot point. Apples and oranges. But Carl would most certainly have Al's back today if he were around, and of course the power structure and politics would differ greatly too.

I think Brian has Al's back to a degree these days, by having Al tour with him. It's both throwing Al a bone, as well as (presumably) helping to do some patching up of a friendship that has surely been strained through the years due to circumstance. Brian benefits too of course since it adds more legitimacy to his current live show. But it's an act (at least partially) of camaraderie, as I see it.

I don't believe that Al would want to be back in the M&B BBs if he wasn't wanted. Clearly he wants to be a BB again on some level, but why would Al want to be entering into a situation (even if Brian somehow had the ability to snap his finger and make it happen) where Mike has the level of control that he currently has?

Well the first part of that was the case for some time (Michael Palin being the holdout).

The second part is different of course and does separate The Beach Boys from other groups. But if Mike were out there as Mike Love and the Endless Summer Band then would it really make people that much happier?

In a word: Yes.

I can't speak for other people, but I know that I'd respect that a hell of a lot more.

That`s  interesting and I can understand the logic.

Personally I can`t attach to much importance to the brand name though. It is a business and has been for a long time.

Mike playing far fewer gigs and much crappier venues under his own name wouldn`t really add anything imo.

Out of curiosity: do you have an issue with any given famous band using the band name if there's only 1 original band member still in the band, or would that situation never bother you ever under any circumstances? Or it would that depend on the band, circumstance, and importance of the band member? Would Ringo or Pete Best touring as The Beatles be a problem? (Not saying that this is the same situation, only trying to understand the logic).

I'd rather that question be asked to the people who have a vote in the matter. I would love to hear their answer. Actually I wouldn't....

It's more than that though. The name has a symbolic value. I don't refer to The Beach Boys as my second favourite business.

I'd wager Mike that if posed the question on a general level (not pertaining to the BBs), and answering truthfully, would say, using The Beatles as an example, that Paul has the right to tour as The Beatles if he wants to, but that Ringo doesn't. It has to be someone intrinsically responsible for a chunk of the hits. Which I can understand that logic, but not necessarily agree with. It's a case by case basis for me. The bigger and more legendary/iconic the band, the lamer a situation like that becomes, IMO.

A Las Vegas setlist is generally 80 minutes.
That's a LOT of 2:40 minute songs packed in and leaves plenty of room for variation.

But you're also talking to a guy that considers sidemen singing rarities a wasted opportunity.
Whether it was Jeff singing "Don't Worry Baby," Totten on "Besty," Bennett on "Sailor," or Darian on "Darlin'" -- it's a cheat to me.
Too Westbury oldies show in my opinion. I'd rather a shorter show than that.

Bandmember can't take the lead? Toss it.

Well that kills every ballad that Brian ever sang lead on. There is no way that they could get away with not having someone else sing falsetto. Geez, even when Carl was alive Jeff or Matt were doing leads. Age has a way of causing these changes in lead singers. Back in the 80's I was so happy when they added Jeff. They finally had someone that made the live versions sound closer to the recorded versions. I am totally convinced that we fans are never happy no matter what they do. Also, I prefer rock bands that come to me, not me having to travel to Vegas when I want to see them. Last time I was in Vegas they still had dinner shows and you had to have a tie and jacket to get inside. ;)

As a Long Islander, that line alone justified this entire thread. Thanks, Howie! :)

Just stepping in to suggest bringing Carl into this is a bit of a red herring from the get-go, as none of the issues being brought up would even have been issues if it were not for Carl's passing, and the naming issue would not have come up if it were still the Beach Boys of the mid-90's. Issues over content, performance, image...things like the dancers and other stuff that may have riled up some fans - Those I'm sure were discussed but perhaps not brought to a vote. As soon as Carl passed, all of what is still being debated here got magnified 1000 times larger, as the "Beach Boys" had effectively ceased to exist and the issue of using the band's name as a marketing tool became a focal point.

Rewind it back to those years: I'm also of the opinion that the awarding of rights to the name itself as a marketing tool has caused more problems than it was worth, or perhaps than it has been good for regarding the general state of affairs.

What if...the consensus was among surviving members that *no one* should be able to carry the name to promote and book shows or albums unless all surviving members were involved? Any individual member could, though, use their status as a founding member in promoting their own shows. This would be as simple as adding "original member of the Beach Boys" or "founding member of the Beach Boys" to the billing of a show, without giving anyone the full name "The Beach Boys".

That is, what I think, what Al was doing with billing his "Family And Friends" tour as he did. He is and was a Beach Boy, I still cannot see what the hell was wrong in principle with him using Beach Boys in the billing because he was not saying he was The Beach Boys.

And Mike, then, would have equal access to bill any show he wished to stage with using the Beach Boys in the billing, without calling the show The Beach Boys. Heck, any member given authorization could have booked shows that way, if they wanted.

Look what happened, though, and we're still devoting page after page to it. I'm just thinking, despite all the votes and agreements that set up the current way, look at how equitable and how fair across the board removing the "Beach Boys" as a name to own or buy into would have been, and all surviving members could use it the same way across the board to bill themselves and their touring shows, if they so chose.

And if all surviving members were in fact to join forces to tour, as in C50 in 2012, there would be a provision that *THIS* is the "Beach Boys" and will tour and be billed as such. No confusion - All surviving members on stage, on tour...that is The Beach Boys. Simple as that. And when that ended, it could be back to those surviving members using the tag line "Founding member of", or "Original member of" alongside their own name(s) to bill the shows. It would also prevent a sax player who played with them in 1977 from touring as a Beach Boys member decades later...that's when the BRI hammer would come down.

Sounds simple, right? Perhaps too simple to have worked in the past 15+ years or so.

That would've been the ideal scenario but probably not a profitable one for BRI. I think the average person just sees "Beach Boys" and says "Oh, the band who did Fun, Fun, Fun. Yeah, I'll see them". I don't know how much name recognition these guys have apart from Brian (and it's positively frightening how few people..especially baby boomers.. even know who Brian is. Forget fans, social media and hipster blogs, when I deal with regular folks in day to day reality they haven't a clue who he is, they just know the name "The Beach Boys" and their pre-Pet Sounds hits. Maybe that's a symptom of baby boomers. Maybe it's changing and younger generations are figuring out who did what. Who knows?).   
 
This is way more common a problem with other 60's groups than just The Beach Boys. I mean, at least when you see "The Beach Boys" you're seeing two (and now sometimes three) members who made records in the 60's. When you see The Temptations or The Supremes play live, you're not even getting that.

I understand that, I do think perhaps some of it also relates to the differences between "civilians" and those people who are either musicians or more deeply invested in music as a part of their daily life. I think the more music-leaning people take the time to learn and know more about artists beyond the songs or the hits as background music, or music to dance to. Example(s):

Ask those same people who may be unsure of Brian Wilson who Tom Scholz is, or who Jeff Lynne is. And in the case of Tom Scholz, how many people know Boston and the hits from that first album? Then mention Scholz...who? And you say he's the guy who wrote and recorded 95% of those Boston songs in his Massachusetts basement, one of the top selling albums of all time...Oh! That guy!  :)  Or maybe not even that much recognition, but those same people have probably played air guitar to at least "More Than A Feeling" at some point in the past 35 years.  ;D

I don't like comparing, it's usually a case of apples and oranges, but what are the chances of Ringo or Paul doing a Beatles tour, what are the chances of a Rolling Stones tour without Mick and Keith (and Charlie) on stage, and what would fans think if Steven Tyler regularly toured as Aerosmith without Joe Perry? The Beach Boys are not only in that upper echelon of rock legacies with those groups, but they also influenced each of those groups through their music in the 60's. I don't know if there are legal restrictions or anything like that, but I'm pretty confident as someone already said that the individual Beatles going back to 1970 had agreed the band name would not be used to tour or play a show if the four of them could not be on stage. And it made things pretty simple, and also they have been touring and playing shows as individuals for 40+ years without any naming issues. Same with Mick and Keith regarding the Stones, I can't think of any time even when they were fighting like mad the suggestion that either man would take the Stones name and tour with it, with Charlie drumming. Fans of Aerosmith, the Stones, The Beatles...they'd be up in arms if a decision was made to license the band's name without those members all being involved. I'd imagine. Boston and ELO have had legal and personal squabbles of their own regarding who tours with the name, so who knows.

Well, that goes into a whole different area. WE know our rock history and WE place The Beach Boys in that upper tier. I'm not so sure the average joe does. They probably place them alongside The Turtles, Paul Revere and The Raiders, etc and groups of that ilk. I hate to say it, but I don't think most (older) people put The Beach Boys in the same category as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. 

That's a situation that will change as time goes on. Heck, it took about 25 years for Pet Sounds to receive all the accolades it rightly deserved in America (and the classic rock fans laughed at that notion at first..now they grudgingly go along with it).

Another difference with The Beatles as solo performers is that they were consciously trying to get away from the "Beatles" name (hence Wings and The Plastic Ono Band). That only changed with Paul's tours beginning in the 1990's when he really went gung-ho on loading the show with Beatles songs. It was one of those situations where the fame and legacy of The Beatles just grew so huge that it was no use fighting it anymore.

My point, and I don't know if it's correct, is that BRI saw that "The Beach Boys" name could be used in a similar way the name Paul Revere and The Raiders, The Temptations or a myriad of other oldies acts used the name for touring purposes. That was nearly twenty years ago and, of course, the critical stature of The Beach Boys has risen substantially since then.

I have mellowed on that subject over time. If you had asked me in 1998 then I would have said that The Beach Boys name should have been retired and I would have been pretty scornful of any band going on with only one original.

But like so many things it is not so black and white anymore. So many old bands go out without their original line-ups and there is obviously an audience for it. I was watching the 1980s Rewind Festival on TV a while ago and it was clear that the crowd don`t really care too much about whether some of the band members are ringers. They just enjoy the music and as it brings pleasure to so many then it would be churlish to be too against it.

Plus without using the band names, what is the alternative for most of these singers? I think we have seen with Al how tough it can be...

And finally I think there is a huge difference between a situation like The Beatles where the band ended at a specific point in time and a group like The Beach Boys that had a fluctuating line-up throughout its history anyway.

I honestly think it was much more than that.

Over the past 18 months or so David and Al have both been billed as `ex Beach Boys` or `founding members of The Beach Boys` in promotional material for shows. But it certainly seems that the bookings that they`ve had and the tickets that they`ve sold don`t compare at all with how Al was doing as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

It`s often said that many people don`t really have a clue who is onstage when Mike and Bruce go out as The Beach Boys and the same must certainly be true of the band Al was taking out at that time. There is no way when people saw that name that they would have immediately known that they were only going to see one Beach Boy.

And also using `The Beach Boys` right at the start of the name was obviously going to cause a lot more confusion (and get a lot more tickets sold) than `Al Jardine`s Beach Boys` or The Family and Friends of The Beach Boys` ever would.

OK, I'll answer my own question: Epsom 2014 setlist, non-BB lead vocals highlighted (feel free to correct).


Do It Again
Goin' to the Beach
Little Honda
Catch a Wave
Surfin' Safari
Surfer Girl
Why Do Fools Fall in Love
When I Grow Up (to Be a Man)
Darlin'
Don't Worry Baby
Little Deuce Coupe
409
I Get Around
Sloop John B
Wouldn't It Be Nice
Then He Kissed Me
California Girls
Pisces Brothers
God Only Knows
Good Vibrations
Cotton Fields
Kokomo
Help Me, Rhonda
Do You Wanna Dance?
Barbara Ann
Surfin' U.S.A.
Encore:
Wild Honey
Fun, Fun, Fun

9 out of 28, and they're not on average six and a half minutes long. :)

I think you may have touched on one of the underlying points that some of us may feel when reading a lot of these discussions, or maybe it's just something that occurred to me in the moment.

Consider how many times I've heard the points made about "carrying the torch", "protecting the legacy", "promoting the spirit of the band", whatever the case when these naming and license issues have come up.

Now, consider if we accept it is true that the "average Joe" types are considering the Beach Boys as of 2014 in the same category as Paul Revere and The Raiders, The Turtles, The Temptations, whoever else...but basically bands who play the traveling jukebox circuit and haven't done much of anything of note musically or otherwise for the better part of four decades...

Is that a good end result to tally up and point to as a marketing or public relations success after 15 years (give or take) of this legacy building and standard-bearing and protecting and all of the rest?

I'd say if the average Joes are putting the Beach Boys not much higher in status or even in terms of legacy or place in history alongside freakin' Paul Revere or any of the others, then something hasn't worked or isn't working.

Contrast that with Pet Sounds' constant and regular appearance on "best of" lists, critical praise, the whole Smile saga from Brian's tour to the box set, the many musicians who name-check the music, the success of the C50 tour, again critically and in terms of public opinion it was a goldmine of a success...

...and we're putting the Beach Boys in terms of public perception and opinion alongside touring "name" bands who haven't done much if anything as a band for 40+ years except play oldies shows?

Seriously, something hasn't worked to "carry the torch" in terms of preserving the band's legacy and reputation as things exist today if that's the case.

Please excuse the stream-of-consciousness below:

I don't know. On the one hand one can say that the majority of casual fans only know about the early hits and don't know if who they are seeing on stage are the original Beach Boys or not. On the other hand, though, The Beach Boys have always been a much bigger draw when Brian Wilson is part of the band.

I was just thinking that, say, at a Stones show, most people would probably notice if Keith wasn't there. And at a Who show, most people would probably notice if Pete wasn't there. When the Beatles did that one brief part of the 1964 tour without Ringo, people definitely took notice. These are bands that cultivated interest in not only the songs but the people. So I'm wondering - maybe the Beach Boys haven't done that? But then I think, of course they have. At least to an extent. If they hadn't, the Brian is Back campaign would have never been the kind of success that it was.

Of course, the fact is, there are plenty of people you can find who say that they like music, that they even like "old music" but they still wouldn't be able to give you the full names of all four Beatles. I don't know what the point is there, but something tells me it's relevant.

As I've said before, general fans of music know that they like a group but don't necessarily obsess over the members. They dig the music but member's lives and bios aren't important to how they enjoy it.  That's the reason Mike can go out there with just Bruce and the Beach Boys name and sell out small venues all over America. It's the name and the music people are responding to, not the actual people on stage. Mike loves the fact that his shows are sell outs, but it's the Beach Boys name and the music that sells in these venues, not the name tags on the people playing it.

But, when you get to the level of the larger venues with the big promoters involved, it becomes much more important to have as much authenticity as possible, which means more of the real deal in the performing line up. They want to sell tickets, not only to the casual fan, but to the band geeks like us who know details about each and every member and every bass line they ever played, and to individuals in the music industry who make or break the big ticket shows with concert reviews and industry buzz. That's a different playing field than the one Mike's happy in.

I think Jon and Howie are right. C50 meant that the Beach Boys could have graduated up to that level of participation in the industry, but it didn't happen. And yes, I think it's a shame.

That's true to an extent but I think people realize what they are getting more than you give them credit for here. People show up in droves for some Beatles tribute bands, particularly the well advertised and more "legitimate" ones, but the audience also knows that what they are seeing is not the real deal. But they go anyway because, like you suggest, it's more about the experience and the music than anything else. But I would wager that that same audience would be, for the most part, more excited to see a real Beatle in person or a more authentic show.

I agree. It never fails to amaze me how many women will scream over an Elvis impersonator as if he's the real deal, knowing that this is just some guy from Poughkeepsie with a wig.  And,  of course Mike's group has more cachet than any tribute band and he gets to capitalize on that. But, the difference between the oldies jukebox circuit and Madison Square Garden seems to be directly related to how "authentic" the group is. And, in the case of the Beach Boys, I'm guessing that means the inclusion of one Brian Wilson. And, there's the rub, it would seem.

Rockandroll and Cyncie, the points are well made, and I can't disagree with them. Those are coming from more specifically the issues of live performance and presentation, and where I was thinking was also taking that further into the legacy and image areas, specifically public perception. To hear that many "civilians" I'll call them tend to think of the Beach Boys as lumped in with any number of 60's bands who are specifically "oldies circuit" acts is perhaps true but no less disappointing.

And I come back to the point that this would be the case after hearing for over a decade the stuff about carrying the torch, protecting the brand, maintaining the legacy, whatever other variant of that notion which has been used.

To your points, on personalities within bands and the fans' connections with them, consider how strong of a reaction you'd get in an informal poll by mentioning the names "Brian Wilson" and "Mike Love" and asking for thoughts and opinions from those being polled. I'd say there are, in fact, two distinct and rather strong personalities within the "Beach Boys" brand that draw fans into the saga as personalities and as personal stories, too.

I agree that the Beach Boys should not be relegated to "oldies" status. They should be on the level of the Beatles and the Stones. Classic musicians as opposed to "oldies," which has a negative connotation. The oldies groups had some hits. Legacy groups shaped the music. The Beach Boys are a legacy group, even if they don't act like it. In my opinion, Mike's band just continues to shove the group into the oldies category, while C50 proved that they could hold their own with the big guys. It amazes me and disappoints me that the band is satisfied with this status quo.

So it doesn't get lost in my own stream-of-consciousness thinking, I wanted to separate this point that is current and also applicable *as of this week* in the music biz.

Anyone watch Jimmy Fallon's show? Just this week, he had Tony Bennett as a musical guest. Bennett has a brand new album featuring Lady Gaga. To introduce Bennett, they actually ran a video of Gaga introducing Tony's performance and saying sorry she couldn't be there, or whatever.

And Tony, bless his heart, came out and for one of the first times it looked to me like he was showing his age, physically. BUT...he starts up with a jazz ballad, accompanied by his guitarist, then the full combo. The voice was still there, the smooth phrasing backed by a terrific small jazz combo. The ballad ends, the guitarist walks back behind the piano. Then Tony launches into his uptempo swinger, Duke's "It Don't Mean A Thing", and *kills* it.

So there is a guy in his 80's, right? Fronting a jazz combo dressed for what the old-school musicians would call a "society gig", basically doing exactly what Tony Bennett has done for 50+ years.

Fallon's audience...they're not of Tony's generation. The Roots are the house band, Fallon is my age and has that same kind of humor and the same references. He also draws the college-age and 20-something demo, obviously, and the "Twitter generation".

Lady Gaga...enough said. Her fan base is massive and massively loyal to her and whatever she does.

Pair Gaga with Tony Bennett...on paper, would that work? We'll see.

But Tony, the ol' professional came out on that stage and killed 'em doing something not at all different than he did in the supper clubs of the 1950's, in fact it's exactly the same, and the younger audiences ate it up.



***Point being, how did Tony Bennett go from living in near-obscurity throughout the 70's and 80's at least in the minds of "young" listeners to becoming the "King Of Hip", "The King Of Class", whatever hyperbole you'd want to attach? The man has done absolutely *nothing* different in his stage show than he was doing 50-60 years ago, yet he got discovered and rediscovered by new audiences, and they embraced the hell out of him and his music. He's in a class of his own, as far as someone under 40 willing to buy product from a musician in his 80's...not just buy it, but enjoy it.

How did he do that? How did *they* do that, basically transforming the image and perception of this musician while the musician himself changed nothing? I know who did it, and how they did it, and it was genius from a marketing angle...but I'm asking here to consider how did they pull it off to the point in 2014 where pairing Tony with Lady Gaga isn't laughed off the shelves?

And consider comparing and contrasting that kind of marketing where the artist's stature and public perception improved considerably enough to make both new albums and live shows marketable and popular, versus where the past few decades of the Beach Boys saga has led that perception to have folks lumping them in with oldies-circuit acts.

C50 for the Beach Boys was Tony Bennett's "MTV Unplugged", it was that pivotal moment where the follow-up was crucial to maintaining that momentum and wider fan interest...and even that has now led to fractured versions of the band playing the same state on the same day, and all this talk about protecting the brand and carrying the torch, or whatever.

Just food for thought. It just happened to hit me as I watched Tony Bennett killing it on Fallon's show this week. The Beach Boys did the *same thing* for Fallon in 2012 when the curtain was raised and all original members sang a capella "In My Room", they killed it too. Then it was gone. And we're debating ever since.  :)

And there's a noticeable difference between the audience in Mike and Brian's shows in the U.S.

Brian's shows have always seemed younger, hipper -- sometimes geekier -- perhaps more into the history of music, and on average 30 to 50 years old -- at times overly forgiving of Brian's shortcomings.
Mike shows have always shocked me at how old the core audience is; bad hips, white hair -- absolutely no care to who's singing the song -- "I gotta  beer and a chair and it's all good." There's also that element of group homes, bikers, which I've often caught at Mike's -- but not Brian's -- concerts.

I catch plenty of classic acts in concert, I've yet to EVER see one older than at Mike's show.

It's interesting that it's essentially the same show and an absolute night and day scenario in terms of the cut of who's showing up.
The 50th bridged that gap a bit -- it was an older crowd than unusually found at BW's shows, but there was still a youthful element that must've been shocking to Mike.
And . . . . . . . . . there were people with pens there writing about what they saw and heard.

I've gotta concur that at least here in California there is a distinct difference in the audience at a Mike show as opposed to a Brian show. I've seen each act at a California winery within the last two months. Mike's crowd looked wealthier, older, more baby boomers, more Hawaiian shirts, more car guys, more senior citizens, and more families with little kids. Kind of like a theme park crowd. Brian's had a smaller cross section of all of the same, but an added third or so of hipster types, musicos, 30 year olds with tattoos, techies and nerds. Mike's house was full, Brian's was not. mike's audience swayed and danced and was happy, Brian's audience literally freaked out with energy, kinetic, with a constant stream of young people going up to the stage edge to take selfies with the band behind them. It's an interesting difference. Mike's audience looks more well heeled and into the "event", Brian's audience looks more varied culturally and more music obsessed. These are total generalizations and anecdotal, but semi in line with Howie's observation.

The C50 show I attended was indeed a rather odd mixture of nerdy, hipster-types like those you often see at Brian gigs, and the white haired dudes in Hawaiian shirts that probably gravitate more towards Mike shows.

I took my companion to C50 and warned her that this would be an “old” crowd, as she hadn’t been to BB/Brian shows before. Sure enough, the following year on the Brian/Beck tour, the audience skewed noticeably younger, and it was probably the Brian fans skewing younger than the Beck fans.

Venues also probably play a bit of a role. When I see Brian at an upscale winery with season ticket holders and whatnot, there are more old, Hawaiian-shirt clad couples sipping their wine and probably not knowing who wrote or sang what for the Beach Boys. When I see Brian at a theater in the city, it skews younger with more of the indie/hipster nerds in attendance. I can’t imagine, on top of other probably much more notable factors, Mike enjoyed some of these audiences with the hipster types who cheer ten times louder for Brian than for him. I’ve heard/seen some recordings of, for instance, the Bonnaroo Festival gig they did for C50 in 2012, and it’s no coincidence that “Heroes and Villains” is one of the most warmly-received songs (hipsters into “Smile”), while something like “It’s OK” sounds like the audience is falling asleep (on the recordings I’ve heard; the wild festival crowd is pretty silent).

I’m still convinced, while not the main factor, a not insignificant factor in Mike disliking elements of C50 was simply Brian being introduced last to the largest applause, night after night. I don’t think for a second that it doesn’t at least cross his mind that he’s been schlepping around touring for all these years and Brian *still* gets the most adulation.

I may not be precisely addressing the points brought up in relation to Carl and the current trademark/licensing set up. But from the evidence at hand, Carl *did* play some level of a role in where things are at now.

Again, turning to the Stebbins/Marks book and Carlin’s book, and other inteviews and sources, it appears the move toward the current setup of Mike’s production company running the tour, employing the musicians, and then licensing use of the BB name began in the 90’s while Carl was still alive. I don’t know if they literally were already issuing a “license” to anybody prior to Carl’s death. But it appears as though Al saw where this setup was going and how that could allow for a huge, seemingly insurmountable power shift in their setup, and Carl did not side with Al and did not contest what was going on. We don’t know Carl’s intentions (just resigned to Mike running the group, or honestly thought it was a good idea, or didn’t see or believe in Al’s theoretical doomsday scenario), but Al was pretty much going it alone even when Carl was still alive. It also appears as though, however you view the validity of what happened in subsequent years, and despite Al being utterly impotent in doing anything about it, Al apparently predicted/knew what was going to happen. Again, whether justified or not, it helps explain why, especially in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, he seemed rather disenfranchised and pot-stirring in interviews about it. The description in the Stebbins/Marks book of Al questioning David Marks about his reintroduction into the band is stark and a bit more poignant in relation to the demise of his position in the band once you’re able to fill in more blanks about what had been going on, what Al knew, and what ended up happening. 

See? The Beach Boys name obviously draws a larger crowd! Also, you have your Silicon Valley/Bay Area crowd pack not one but TWO winery venues in close proximity to where they live plus Tahoe to see two original members and supporting musicians, where you have two other ex-members of said group and supporting musicians playing a small winery in Bumfuct, California where you have to drive a pretty good distance to get there and back.

Another possibility is that he had something bigger to deal with: although his cancer was officially announced in spring 1997, I saw him twice  in early 1996 and he looked awful, sounded very 'off': as a friend stated at the time, "Carl just looks... wrong". Those who know him better are of the opinion that he knew something was very wrong by summer 1995.

That's absolutely possible; I've mentioned this possibility in the past. This would be a variation on the "resigned" scenario. But, we also don't know how long those business machinations were going on. Moves towards the eventual set up may have begun prior to 1995. Scant evidence, but I'm still interested to know more about Carlin's reference to attempt to oust Al from the band in 1990.

I think there's a decent amount of purely circumstantial evidence that while Carl was the one who was full of piss and vinegar about the deteriorating live show back in 1981, by the early 90's he seemed to be on autopilot just like everyone else in the band. That's not to say he didn't give great performances. He was one of the main reasons to catch the band in the 80's and 90's. I've sensed that all those little nitpicky things like the cheerleaders were things that Al took more issue with than Carl, although Carl so rarely spoke about those things that we can never know for sure.

That circa 1989 interview with Carl that someone dug up and translated a while back was interesting, and even back in 1989 Carl presciently predicted that in the end Mike might well be the only one left standing. I think Carl sensed that back then (probably even earlier), and that could have contributed to his feeling more easily resigned to whatever Mike's moves for the group were.

I have always been of the thought that Carl's illness affected his judgment a bit, and was one of the reasons the album sessions with Brian crashed & burned. When the Beach Boys were on Home Improvement, first thing I noticed was how pale Carl looked (second thing was how stupid it was for neighbor Wilson to refer to all of them as his cousins...)

And sadly, "Home Improvement" was probably the best of the sitcom guest star bits they did!  :lol

Sadly, you're right.

Two things.  One, we lived in Las Vegas 2006-2012 before coming back to Texas. The M & B Beach Boys played there several times, Al played there at least twice, but the only concert I saw was the C50 at the Red Rock.  Not because I was avoiding the others, but I just didn't go (although I was thinking about one of Al's shows). The C50 was an absolute must for all the obvious reasons.  50-year fan, 50 year reunion, etc. Would a Vegas-based "residency" for the "original band with surviving members" work for them and us?  Don't know. Santana has had one, and that would have seemed kind of unlikely. In the right venue, a good set-list with some variation, and a reliable cast of characters, it just might.

Two, a couple of other bands I became a fan of in the 70's were the Marshall Tucker Band and Asleep At The Wheel. I would not walk across the street to see the current MTB, much like I wouldn't to see the Stones or Springsteen, for the simple fact that the only original member is the singer Doug Gray. Three are deceased, thee others left in the 1980's after Tommy Caldwell died, one stuck it out with Doug Gray for a few years and then left. It ain't the same band, revolving door of players, and Gray has completely lost his voice. I personally think he has wrecked their legacy to  degree. Now, with Asleep At The Wheel, the only original member is Ray Benson.  But that's the way it has been virtually since their inception in the 70's. There have been over a hundred members - fiddlers, piano players, bass players, drummers, steel guitars, fiddles, horns, all of them.  I think the longest tenured player other than Ray is the drummer, David Sanger, who has been there since the mid-80's. However, the band is always great, and nobody is disappointed because Lucky Oceans or Chris O'Connell or Tim Alexander or whoever aren't there. It's just the way it is. Individual members never seemed that big a deal, even when we did have our favorites. I still love that band, but while I  still listen to the old songs regularly, I pay no attention to Doug Gray's MTB, and wish he would just retire the name. Two bands, one similarity, two opinions. What can I say? Every case is different.

That has obviously not been the case with a lot of longtime Beach Boys fans, and will likely stay that way. I'm not that interested in seeing the M & B show but a lot of fans are. That's fine. They're keeping the music and the name alive. I've seen Brian's band twice, both SMILE shows, and I'm satisfied. I'd like to see Al, but probably won't have that chance.  Seeing them all together, now that's what I'd pay to see again.

Lots of words, not sure I said anything useful.

I think that might be stretching things a little.  :)

Obviously the M&B shows do attract plenty of old people but plenty of their shows, depending on the venues, also attract all ages from young children upwards. This is even truer when the mighty John Stamos is involved.

Nicko -- I bet if I wrote  the opposite, you would disagree that, too.
This dance is getting old (even with the smiley faces).

I am with you on this. There are plenty of young people at the shows. Even Mike has mentioned many times on Facebook that there were many young people at this year's shows. He even talked about the kids even sang along on many songs and was amazed that they knew all the words. Maybe California audiences are a different mix than other parts of the country.

Are you talking "young people" like children?
Yeah, always tons of children at Mike's Beach Boys shows.
I've never rated that as an attribute.

I can firmly attest to this fact: Unlike Jon's part of the country, the well-heeled NYC area folk are bypassing Mike Love concerts for the likes of off-Broadway, Lincoln Center and the Met, etc. I'm not saying that Brian's shows are bringing out Thurston Howell and his ilk, but the Mike shows I've caught over the recent years in the Tri-State NY area attract a lotta broken down sorts. County fair indoors. It is not a classy night out. It seems to me to be a decidedly lower income gang.

 

I dunno. I'm only partially being facetious when I say that when a crowd is, on average, really old, then the scattered young people stick out even more. Yes, I've seen young folks at old fogey shows like Ringo, McCartney (less so with McCartney; probably only because his tickets are so expensive), the Beach Boys, etc. But the average age at a Brian Wilson show is surely noticeably lower than that at a Beach Boys concert. There may be more 10-year-old kids at a Beach Boys concert than at a Brian Wilson show (which may also have to do with ticket prices), but there are more folks in their 20's and 30's at a Brian show. There are a bunch of interesting possible reasons for this, and it's a fun and interesting topic to discuss, but it's a difficult discussion to have when people are insistent on defending Mike's show against the charge that the audience is, on average, on the more geriatric side.

There are all sorts of interesting breakdowns on the potential stats on audiences. For instance, I would guess the age at, say, a UK "Beach Boys" show skews at least a bit younger than at a US show, since the band may have gained a disproportionately large number of fans in the later 60's and into the early 70's in the UK compared to the US.

I have little doubt there's a bit of a political, social subtext boiling under the surface of some of these discussions. I've seen it happen before during discussions of C50 playing larger markets versus Mike playing smaller, more out of the way markets. Setting aside how we individually feel about the group, when we're looking at how the rest of the world views them, there are some fans who think the reaction of an audience in Biloxi is just as integral to the band's career as a good review in Rolling Stone or the the large market newspapers, etc. I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

Yes that and their parents who are young adults. I've seen teenagers and 20 something's, as well. It may not be how it was in the 80s and 90s, but you are correct in that there are many more hipsters and high class dinks and the such at Brian's shows. We dregs who come from the middle class have to buy the cheaper seats and lay low in the shadows of Brian's shows. Boy, never thought of Mike & Bruce's Beach Boys as the Every Man's band. They cater to us low life's. ;)

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour. Many of us have theorized and suspected there's probably only one person in the whole equation who *may* have made less money on C50 compared to a Mike tour. Further, at the very least 50% of the shareholders of BRI wanted to continue C50.

Also, as we've been discussing, C50 had the wider cross-section of demographics of fans than either a Mike or Brian show. More expensive tickets, larger markets, larger venues, *and* the best press they've had in decades is something that BRI should LOVE, no pun intended.

Woulda/shoulda/coulda....BRI isn't interested in amazing press or publicity. Show me the money!

I can say with as much confidence as one possibly could without seeing their personal financial statements that at least 50% of BRI, in the form of Brian and Al, made TONS more money on C50 than they make off of Mike's tour.

You didn't read closely what I wrote - SHOW me the money, not WORK for the money. Yes, they could conceivably make more money with the C50 lineup than merely milking the M & B roadshow. But, then they'd actually have to perform the 70+ shows and the meet and greets and staged soundchecks, etc. "No more shows, please." See how well they (and their spouses) get along? Either they'd kill themselves or they'd kill each other!

Nobody including Mike has contested that Brian and Al wanted to do more reunion shows. That's pretty strong evidence they wanted to keep going, whether for the money, or the experience, or likely both.

As has been discussed elsewhere, Brian and Al likely don't make a ton of money (relatively) off their cut of the licensing fee from Mike's tour. The idea that money is the one and only motivator for "letting" Mike use the name is far too oversimplified.

Brian and AL *surely* made TONS more money off of C50. Carl's estate probably did too. Even Mike *may* have.

I think the Tony Bennet renaissance began much like the Tom Jones and Johnny Cash comebacks around the same time, where young audiences discovered them and sort of liked them in a tongue-in-cheek way at first before developing in to a full blown appreciation. It didn't hurt that Tony's music video "Steppin' Out With My Baby" amazingly was added to MTV's playlist, giving more exposure than anything he had done in the prior ten years. There was also the "swing revival" happening at the same time, with Harry Connick Jr., The Brian Setzer Orchestra, etc. It was a situation where the stars aligned in Tony's favor.

Another reason why The Beach Boys have been lumped into the "oldies but goodies" category is because Oldies radio is the only format they got airplay on for 40 years!! Classic Rock radio will play The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc (nothing before 1965 naturally) but have ignored the Beach Boys entirely, unless there was a lone wolf out there like Pete Fornatale who would extoll the virtues of "Sunflower". Truth to be told, it was so little attention that it never made any impact on the format. We can't underestimate the power of radio formats in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Generations grew up thinking of The Beach Boys like they would The Four Seasons, The Turtles, etc. and would never expect or even WANT to hear them alongside "serious" music like Led Zeppelin. Obviously radio is dying out now and has less of an impact than it did these past 40 years but .....40 years is some MAJOR history/brainwashing to overcome.


There seems to be a perception on this board that Mike & Bruce's shows somehow tarnish the legacy of The Beach Boys. I don't see that at all. We've come a long way these past 40 years. I think the average music geek today who's into Brian Wilson in the same way he's into Big Star and The Raspberries, doesn't listen to either Classic Rock or Oldies radio, doesn't have these divisions being drilled into his head all day, and doesn't consider the live shows to have any bearing on the legacy of the group. These younger fans seem to only be into Pet Sounds and Smile and few "curated" oddball tracks here and there. Going to see a Brian Wilson show as much to pay respect as to enjoy the music (much like seeing Tony Bennet). Whatever any of the rest of the guys do in various live iterations has zero effect of the group's legacy. Pet Sounds still sells. The Smile Sessions was a huge success and Mike & Bruce were touring all through it and it neither helped or hurt the sales, reviews, etc. (BTW Mike & Bruce do a great live show. There's nothing to be embarrassed about there).

Brian's music in Indie circles is revered the same way Daniel Johnston's music is and, uniquely, he's appreciated OUTSIDE the group (something Carl's legacy hasn't achieved yet for example). What I see is Dennis's comment of "He's everything. We're nothing" really coming true for younger fans/Millenials. Personally I'm not a fan of that idea now, although I was certainly on board with that in my 20's. I get where this notion that the rest of The Beach Boys are worthless is coming from. It may be a case of overcompensating for all those years Brian's musical identity was given short shrift while the rock world proclaimed the genius of Lennon and McCartney, but I feel all the members of The Beach Boys left their stamp on the group's sound. Brian is obviously the key factor, the leader, the most important member, the genius, the one-man band, etc. but all of The Beach Boys are musical heavyweights in my eyes (and ears).


And for the record, I can't stand Classic Rock radio. For any radio station to call itself Classic Rock and NOT play Chuck Berry makes it a joke (but I'm way in the minority there...so much so that my opinion would be irrelevant to the programmers and listeners).

I don't agree with the figures that have been proposed/discussed on this board regarding Brian and Al's cut. I think they are too low, which is what I would expect from this board. But, even if they are accurate, it still amounts to millions of dollars since the license was negotiated. However, the actual dollar amount isn't relevant. Obviously they were happy with the figure/amount - whatever it was - during negotiations or else they wouldn't have agreed to it. And, obviously they are still happy with the figure/amount - whatever it is - because I don't hear of any movement to change it. And, don't you think if there was a movement to change it, we'd have heard about it? People always talk, especially in The Beach Boys' circle.

I do agree with you that the idea of money as the one and only motivator for "letting" Mike use the name does appear too simplified. But I'll be damned if I can think of a better one.

Good conversation, Hey Jude, but I'm now going to devote some time to my fantasy football team. My first two picks this year were Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady, so, needless to say, I'm been scrambling and recovering ever since! >:(

I love seeing the kids at Mike's Beach Boys shows. They don't know about the entire shitshow behind the scenes, they just love the music.

delete

It's very relevant in that the musical content and catalogues of the top tier, most revered and iconic groups in rock and roll history, like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin and yes, Beach Boys arguably transcend the significance of the band lineups, which is the heart of the "carrying the torch", "keeping the spirit of the music alive" etc. argument. This argument has validity in any case where the music is so uniquely evocative and has the power to positively affect people so strongly.

But it is trumped IMO by the other argument. In the cases of the Stones & Who, they know what's right & proper and all surviving members will d--n well be onstage at any concert that bears their bands' legendary name (McCartney & Ringo are a unique case and should be given a pass).

Brian Wilson began giving live solo shows in the late '90s, slowly recovered and re-habituated himself courageously to being onstage, and understandably didn't want to have anything to do with his cousin until the C50 opportunity arose, whereupon he rejoined the reunited BBs and enjoyed it so much that he was eager to extend the tour open-endedly, which as Howie said would have been thoroughly doable regardless of ML's protestations to the contrary, even if it would have gone against his standard operating procedure re: changing terms with promoters etc., but his cousin refused, prioritizing his own convenience and autonomy.

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

ML's refusal to allow it and his insistence on returning to the diluted status quo on his own terms constitutes a sad cheapening of the legendary group's name, image and brand, no ifs, ands or buts, but admittedly by a somewhat narrow margin over the "keeping the music alive" rationale, as I said before. One could argue that by working so hard and touring constantly for so many years he has earned the right to define the brand, but that is invalidated by the fact that, despite his undoubtedly sincere love for the music, he has also been amply remunerated in innumerable ways and therefore
had/has a vested interest in making the "sacrifice" of his hard work.

Pink Floyd is the closest parallel to the BB scenario but at least both Gilmour and Waters were legitimate co-visionaries who both carried on Syd Barrett's legacy and expanded it in two grand, totally legitimate directions.

I know this sounds dogmatic and very black & white, but assuming that there is/was a will on Brian's side to continue doing concerts with Mike & Bruce (Al as well, which is definite, and David would probably like to participate to some degree as is evdenced by M&B inviting him to join them for some shows now), anything less than allowing him/them to play whatever shows they want to with the "Beach Boys" continues the ongoing undermining of their legacy and cannot be adequately justified.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.

I agree with you - especially on this last statement. It's just wrong to promote the idea that rock music began in 1965, or thereabouts. I guess that is the arbitrary cutoff for when "rock 'n' roll" or "rock and roll" became just "rock".

As someone who generally is not a fan of early rock and roll, it's no skin off my ass, although I realize I'm in the minority.

As for the reference to Pink Floyd, I agree...up until a point. For me, Animals was the last true Pink Floyd album I dug. I actually prefer the Final Cut to the Wall, and massively so (another thing that puts me in the minority), but that's a Waters solo album in all but name. The post-Waters Floyd? With a couple of individual tracks aside, I do not care for it at ALL.

Yep. At the moment I think you are sometimes claiming that various shades of grey are black. If you started claiming they were white then you are right that I would still disagree.  :)  :-D  ;D

If you had simply said that, `More young hipsters attend Brian`s shows than Mike and Bruce`s` then I don`t think anyone would disagree.

The fact is that people of all ages attend Mike and Bruce`s shows depending on the venues. If no young women were attending the shows then Mike would have retired years ago.  ;)

I think Mike can appreciate young folk/hipsters okay.  I recall, at a Mike n' Bruce gig, me mouthing along to Darlin' in the stalls, while Cowsill sang.  Mike looked at me a couple of times during the song, then mentioned something about the fans here and their knowledge when the song ended.  Can't remember his exact words, but the sentiment was there.

In the splendid post-show afterglow, an older guy passed me and my woman, still standing by our seats, and starts saying to his own chums pointedly, 'pfff, yeah like young bands these days, huh like they could do that...huh, yeah, young bands, yeah, young huh.'

C50 was a good mix of folk, but there was still a broader spread of humanity.  A fist-fight nearly broke out near me at Wembley.  Aggression.  Men shouting.  All while Mike was giving his TM spiel leading into All This is That.

Following up on the comments regarding the audiences at the various shows: when our group (usually 10 - 15 in number) attend their shows in our neck of the woods (Western New York to Toronto area), for us and our observation it has been that the M&B shows have been more of a "sing a long" while the attraction at the BW shows is more the artist. That holds true especially when BW has a "theme" show (ie. Pet Sounds; Smile; etc.) whereas at his "Greatest Hits" shows, it also tends to be a "sing a long" event.
Nothing wrong with either because the bottom line is we get to see the music performed!

As has been pointed out for over two years now since the demise of C50, NOBODY (as far as I know) is claiming that any contracts were broken in not continuing the reunion, nor is anybody claiming that Mike is legally obligated to continue a reunion tour (or allow anyone into his group which licenses the name). *Clearly*, a *highly* subjective moral/ethical question is being raised as it pertains to all of the BB members, as well as the fans, in addition to any other potential criteria.

However, this idea that these theoretical scenarios involving Mike continuing the reunion or otherwise touring with Brian is *breaking* any contract is just ass backwards.  That’s not how contracts work. Mike isn’t holding up his end of any contracts by NOT continuing the reunion. There are no contracts spelling out that he can’t change what he’s doing. I highly doubt the BRI license FORCES Mike to continue touring, and touring without Brian or Al. I suppose it’s possible there’s some kind of “pay or play” provision in the license agreement that if he wants to keep it, he has to book X number of shows per year or forfeit it. But that’s a highly dubious theory, and the fact that C50 took place proves it’s not difficult to put Mike’s touring setup on hold.

So no, Mike continuing the reunion or otherwise touring with the reunited lineup is not at all like France breaking a treaty or one guy in a 50/50 book partnership trying to take the other guy’s half. If Brian tried to revoke Mike’s stake in BRI, or if one of the members bailed out of the reunion tour in the middle of the tour, *that* would be something more along those lines.

Again, Mike is not legally obligated to work with Brian or any of the other members, nor obligated to do a reunion tour. However, NOT doing more reunion dates is not “sticking” to any contract (once the terms of the contract are met, there is nothing left to “stick” to), and doing more reunion dates is not “breaking” any contract. That’s not how contract law works. The only scenario where these things would be true is if Mike’s licensing agreement specifically calls for him to exclude Brian, Al, etc, and/or if the contracts for the reunion tour specifically called for the reunion lineup to NEVER play together again.

To be clear, I don't think Mike would object to Brian "sitting in" with his version of "The Beach Boys" for some shows, I think he'd object to Brian saying "Well, if I'm going to sit in with you for these shows, I need the following members of my band on-stage and X, Y and Z to happen."

Separately, one point I'd like to address is that people keep coming back to the argument that "Mike's tour is more profitable than C50", a statement that is made based on suggestions from Mike that his leaner touring outfit doesn't cost as much to tour with. Even with the larger tour buses, bigger bands, etc. that C50 commanded, I truly find that hard to believe. But let's just move forward with that assumption since Mike would presumably have no reason to lie about this. Does anyone really believe that Mike's tour makes BRI more money than C50 did?

Let's consider the entire financial impact for BRI, not just the per night rate and ticket sales. Consider everything. The C50 tour resulted in two DVDs and a double live album, which is far more in one year than Mike has done since 1998 on the whole. Then you throw in the merch (which is being sold each night to much larger audiences), the sales for TWGMTR, "50 Big Ones" and the uptick in sales that the individual songs, albums and other compilations probably saw. We've also got radio and streaming royalties, song licensing (commercials, movies, etc.), book interest, etc. Plus, the increased press on a local, national and international level.

So considering all of that, how could M&B touring make more money for BRI than a C50 configuration? Heck, even outside of BRI I'd guess that Bruce and David made more money from a royalty standpoint than they had in recent years. So, unless I'm wildly off base, than the money argument in support of the status quo really needs to be taken out of this discussion. Even if the individual shows are not as profitable for Mike in a full band arrangement, this could be dealt with very easily.

If they presented specific albums or arrangements ("BBs present 'Pet Sounds'", "The Beach Boys: Unplugged", "BBs present Smile", etc.) in the form of 5-7 show residencies in the larger markets that can support that, they could increase ticket prices, play higher end venues, vastly reduce their transportation and back line expenses, and put less wear and tear on their bodies. These unique shows would also result in the ability to release something like "Pet Sounds Live" (DVD, Blu-Ray, CD, Download), peddle more one-off merch, etc. In other words, MAKE MORE MONEY FOR BRI! Hell, they could also use these shows to bring the kids into the fold (a la "California Saga") should they have any desire to allow the family business to continue...Here's an idea - they could dub that series of shows "Beach Boys Family and Friends"! :)

And yes, they could play far fewer shows in this configuration than C50 or M&B and still come out on top. C50 was lumped into a 6-month period (rehearsals, prep, etc.). They'd be better served doing the residencies in the winter months, take a few months off in between (in which they can all book their corporate gigs or smaller shows) and then get together for a June - August summer tour.

Little known piece of trivia: Mike and Brian actually clashed quite a bit over the album artwork for both the "That's Why God Made the Radio" album and the live album. Below is Mike's proposed album cover art for both. I for one think it's pretty unique and experimental, if a bit "on the nose":

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/-BzpOuR8wul8/Uh7cXFf9RtI/AAAAAAAADVs/T2wIXFJaiFM/asp-mvc-server-side-validation%25255B2%25255D.png?imgmax=800)

(http://bbhelp.cit.cornell.edu/files/2012/03/duration-1j4881w.jpg)

I think you’re right. It’s quite possible if not likely that BRI members collectively netted more money on C50 than from a typical year of Mike’s band touring. The only idea behind the theory that Mike personally could have made less on C50 is that even if it netted more money overall after the increased overheard costs and whatnot, far more funds would probably be split up at least for Brian and Al. Those two guys were surely paid out far more money from the tour (whether or not an “equal” cut; I would imagine Brian got as big of a cut as Mike, perhaps not Al; just guessing) than their 25% of the likely 15 or 20%, which would be overall roughly 4 to 5%, of Mike’s tour proceeds.

Let’s also be clear that BRI has voted and the *majority* decided back in 1998 to grant Mike a license, just like the *majority* previously had voted to issue non-exclusive licenses. While various court documents only spell out the vote counts on these votes and do not name who voted which way, it does mention “3 to 1” votes as I recall. It’s not a stretch to suggest that it’s possible if not probably that Mike was the one vote “against” the non-exclusive licenses, while Al was a single vote “against” Mike’s exclusive license.

So even when a board votes for something to happen, it doesn’t mean ALL of the board members agreed. Just a majority. If any board members abstain, it can complicate this idea even more.

So if you’re s shareholder in a corporation, and you are the minority vote in a particular vote, that doesn’t mean you then have to forfeit the profits you’re still entitled to as a shareholder. Collecting your shareholder check doesn’t mean you approve of how the corporation is being run.

Dove Nested Towers nailed it.
Absolutely nailed it.
It's like that old political ad (". . . in your heart you KNOW he's right.")

If Brian wants in, you do whatever it takes to keep Brian. Period.
You don't dig his wife -- tough, this is bigger than that -- you make it work.
This is NOT a Landy situation that Mike is dealing with and/or rejecting by exercising the terms of the license.
This is Mike Love not wanting a partner, which to him means nothing less than having an employer.
And honestly it's been far easier for him over the years to talk lovingly and reverentially about "Cousin Brian" than it has to actually BE with him. (The same goes for Yoko Ono, too.) I went to a Mike show once with a non-fan and they said, "Brian's dead, right?" Not because Mike mentioned cancer or drowning -- but because that's how it's put across. The vibe reads "Miss him. Wish he was still among us."

To be fair to Mike, Brian comes with a lot of baggage. On every level. But, when it's Brian Wilson and he's SANE -- and you're already SO F***CKING RICH off this thing after 130 years -- you acquiesce. You be The Beach Boys with him. You end this thing with him.

But aside from US, without the actual band, the Mike shows are people seeing an ad in the back of the newspaper -- or on a big board on a highway -- and saying: "Beach Boys -- we LOVE Motown!!! Let's go!!!"

And that's the TRUTH.

No matter how friendly one thinks they may be with Mike after the show (or whatever Bruce they get on any given day) -- that's the TRUTH.
It's the fanciest Dean Torrence show on the planet.

In terms of the Rock press/media -- who was salivating to embrace Mike during the 50th (Beatles buddy/TM/Wilson's Hal David -- the angles were endless. . . .) -- he is back to January '88 status. IF THAT. A shame -- because he deserves better. He deserves everything. His EGO went before the brand.

You wanna be Otis Williams -- okay, you're Otis Williams.

I only wish BriMel could've snagged Totten and Cowsill for THEIR band when Mike and Jeff were pursuing one another (organically and entirely by coincidence at the same time, of course.)

But again, talking outside of the money they make per show, C50 undoubtedly did far more to boost album sales, download sales, licensing and radio/streaming royalties, than the status quo does on a yearly basis. And again, that's without the added revenue of TWGMTR, the two DVDs, the live album and the merch being sold to larger houses.

But just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, let's look at the per show argument. Even with the leaner touring outfit (local back line, fewer buses, flying coach, smaller guest lists, smaller catering, etc.), do we really think that M&B make more off of a $100K fee than C50, which likely commands at least $375K-$500K, probably going closer to double or triple that in the larger markets? I would bet that the merch sales alone probably pay for the difference in back line, catering and guest lists. I dunno, I just find it hard to imagine that C50 was spending that recklessly that they were negating higher fees, higher merch sales and all of the other revenue streams mentioned previously.

I agree. I was only painting the most conservative picture possible and pointing out that even then C50 would be a financial boon for most everybody involved.

He is not the BW I once Knew, new M&B song. ;)

Lol  :lol

I'm surprised M&B haven't reworked the BB classic "Wendy" into "Wend-date". Seems like a missed opportunity.

I couldn’t agree more. The point of this discussion is not about legal contracts. Some legal contracts are meant to be broken, or least re-examined. If we’re gonna take the hard line about legal contracts, then Mike must stick to all the contracts that stated he wasn’t the co-writer on tons of hits. No changes to contracts, ever ever ever, remember?  Rules are rules </sarcasm>

This is most simply about what’s the right thing to do. Yeah yeah, I know people will say: how does anyone on a message board (not personally involved in the actual situation) have a right to chime in about the ethics/morality of the choices these strangers make… but quite simply, it seems a matter of common sense about how human beings should treat each other. Let’s take the Beach Boys out of this for a moment. If a similar situation between a group of people (not necessarily bandmates) was being impartially examined by outsiders (with as much knowledge as we have about this situation/history) and it did NOT involve this specific band that we are all emotionally invested in/attached to on some level, I feel doubtful that Mike’s case would garner the same amount of sympathy as is the case now (which ain't much, overall, anyhow).  

I’m sure some people on this board will refute this statement, but I feel that some of the people who defending Mike’s point of view on this matter are possibly only doing so because they have a reason/incentive to not want to have a humungous beef with the guy’s actions. Maybe that incentive is that some people love this band so much, that they don’t want to taint the listening/emotional experience of the music by thinking that one of the core members (whose voice they hear on most of the band’s songs) has acted in an unconscionable/indefensible way.  (side note: I, for one, can separate art and the artist, and I can have a huge issue with the dude, have no problem discussing his actions and finding some of them indefensible, and still love the music he's been involved in. I love Kokomo too. While apples and oranges, I also still love and listen to Phil Spector, but I'm sure some people can't anymore though. The music is a separate entity in my mind, for music as insanely good as The Beach Boys or Phil Spector.)

The only leg that Mike has ever tried to publicly stand on (regarding this issue) is the “end date” thing, but that doesn’t really hold much water if the nitty gritty of Dove Nested Towers’ great post is really discussed. When Mike used this excuse for awhile and realized that the public didn’t really buy this as an excuse (we know that Mike and/or his people read “comments”), the interviews shifted to trying to get sympathy over his inability to get alone with Brian in a room. I have to think that excuse started making the rounds in a planned PR-damage-control manner, otherwise we'd probably heard him say it right after the ugly split. And I would say that I can have a degree of empathy for his point of view on that, even though I think that demanding such an expectation is a mighty unfortunate way of thinking.

No such expectation was demanded in 1966 and the music still turned out pretty damn well. Why isn't this point ever asked to Mike? A more Brian-centric or Brian/Tony Asher-centric album was released, but it was still The Beach Boys, and it was brilliant.  

I’d love to know how Mike would respond to the points of Dove Nested Towers’ post. I’m sure he would simply just dismiss it and not address these individual points, because there’s no way he can say this isn’t about ego (and past resentments, feeling he is due something), but frankly I think people would just like to finally hear him say so. The frustration comes when all sorts of excuses are made, tiptoeing around the real issue, all the while the (unaddressed by Mike) ego/resentment remains the big elephant in the room. Why is only the Brian/Mike alone in a room dynamic the only acceptable one, when dynamics other than that one have proven successful (artistically and financially) for the band?  

So, it is agreed and understood that Mike Love is the one person/one vote who is preventing the group from realizing all of the potential/wishes/dreams that the band and the fans have for the future. But your real frustration is that Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and Carl Wilson's Estate are not doing enough (anything?) through their attorneys to - as you wrote above - break or at least re-examine the contracts? Please, and seriously, if any insiders or honored guests have any knowledge or information that meetings are being held and negotiating is being done to change the licensing, I would like to read about it. 

While there might be other factors that we're not privy to, I'm specifically discussing my frustration with Mike's part in this fiasco. I'm talking about how some people do (or don't) pass judgment on the whole "set end date" stuff, and why that is. I'm willing to acknowledge there may be other people/situations that have allowed the situation to transpire the way it did, but Mike's role is what I'm referring to.

To achieve what so many here and elsewhere seemingly desire above all else - strip Mike of his license to tour as The Beach Boys - requires nothing more complex than the other three voting members of BRI agreeing on that course of action, calling an extraordinary meeting of BRI, tabling said motion and voting 3-1 in favor. Rocket science it ain't.

That nothing even remotely resembling this scenario has (as far as anyone here is aware) even been proposed, much less actioned, these last fifteen or so is something the other side of significant. I'm guessing that the reason is $$$. Alan & Brian are probably doing OK - the latter more so, of course - but I don't see Carl's estate giving up a six figure annual income (for which they have to do precisely and exactly nothing) on such a point of artistic principle. The status remains resolutely quo.

Right. And some folks think it's a shitty state of affairs and Mike Love and his "brilliant lawyers" are to blame slightly more than Carl Wilson's family. I don't recall their greed and lust for money/credit/power dragging Brian Wilson and Al Jardine into court numerous times over the decades in endless, excruciatingly expensive legal gambits that maybe men in their 70s don't have the stomach to endure again. So the status quo is maintained and Alan complains in interviews. Brian does his Brian thing.

But yeah, this is totally about Carl Wilson's family being greedy and horrible to their own family and Mike Love is fresh, pure, and able to levitate if he concentrates really really hard.

No amount of "set end date" or citing of contracts will ever stop the guy from being mocked mercilessly in comments sections, tho. Even if we clone 500 AGDs and set them loose to painstakingly correct the record and you know it!  He won and got his way with the license but he doesn't have to just give a percentage... he also loses a big chunk of respect in the eyes of more than a few people. No amount of money will ever buy that back for him! You can say who cares, he's rich and enjoys the good life... but cmon, listen to him in interviews. He comes off as so desperate for recognition and approval. I can't believe it doesn't occur to him that he sh*t the bed big-time with his graceless C50 exit just when his press started being actually POSITIVE for the first time in decades.

It's seems a bit of a shame, really. Would've been nice for him to join his cousin for the last act instead of whining about being in a room together and snidely bringing up his prescription drug treatment. A typically classy move from Mr Positivity!

Despite the seeming lack of self-awareness, I *have* to think Mike must know this on some internal level. I want a really good, trusted interviewer to ask him this. In a gentle, non-confrontational way. But I think it came down to weighing options, and the most risk-averse option to him was impossible to pass up. As has been his mindset for decades.

Honestly -- if a move hasn't been made to change the licensing agreement by NOW -- it won't.
THAT is kicking a hornet's nest. NOBODY wants that mess in their lives. As vengeful as these people can get -- nobody wants that.
Although BADB was a bold move and and absolute f*** you to Mike -- it fell apart as soon as it came together.
Whatever chemistry that thing had was spoiled by having Jeff Beck bust into that show like Kool Aid and eat up all of David's guitar solos.
(Absurdly and for no reason).

I'm digressing. The main fact is that even if moves were taken to change the license -- this thing would be in litigation for so long that it would be a bunch of 60-plus year-old heirs awaiting a final judgement (and not even it would be settled immediately)

A more interesting question is -- who gets the license when Mike is done?

I would love it to be Matt & Billy.

That is definitely an interesting question! I wonder what Mike Love would prefer happen. The Foskett Boys? An incredibly morose looking Christian Love called back to the service?

There are apparently several different but not wholly unrelated things being debated/suggested here:

One is the full band reunited (or, in the theoretical, having stayed reunited), which would have entailed MORE money for pretty much everybody involved other than Randell Kirsche, Tim Bonhomme (and even *he* got the road manager gig on C50), and possibly Mike Love. That one suggests Love stick to this lineup is not to suggest he give up the license or have it taken away. Had the band stayed together, the "license" wouldn't have mattered.

A second idea is for Mike to simply have the license taken away. I don't really see a ton of people arguing this anymore. The late 90's was the last time I remember a ton of fans complaining about Mike using the BB name, to the point of calling for him to be stripped of it. But as the 2000's wore on, most fans seem to be rather resigned to it. I don't care too much anymore, at least when there is no alternative to Mike's tour available (not the case with a reunited lineup of course). Sure, it would perhaps be nice to see him tour under his own name, or some sort of "Mike Love Presents The Beach Boys" or something, but these are all points that are so fine as to be meaningless in this scenario.

I think Carl's estate would prefer the reunion lineup, if for no other reason than it probably made *them* more money, and also better the group's image, which in turn makes even MORE money.

To the degree fans need or want to place blame on the members of this band, the board members that allow this thing to go on the way it is are indeed at fault. But it's also silly to flip the whole thing and put it on Brian, Al, and Carl's estate. Firstly, it seems apparently Al probably voted against the way things are now, and I would imagine might well vote right now to take the license away, especially if some alternative were in place to continue touring in its place (reunion lineup, Brian and Al, non-exclusive licenses for all without using the full BB name, etc.).

For Brian and Carl's estate, it seems to be about passivity. There's plenty of blame to heap on that, if one is inclined to need to place blame for the way things are right now.

But even that pales in comparison to the person actively engaging in the way the setup is now, and who two years ago chose to leverage his power, Al's impotence, and Brian's and Carl's estates indifference against the alternative of keeping the full band together.

And I think there is a possibility that at least once or twice in the last 15 years, the idea of changing the license arrangement may well indeed have been floated, at least briefly and perhaps without full intention to follow through. But such a thing may have been floated once or twice, and I have little doubt that the various "camps" have discussed various scenarios and pros and cons of trying to change the current set up. I think they're simply too old and don't want to help put even more lawyers' kids through college by trying to make a bunch of business and legal maneuvers at this stage.

Thanks! Me and Mr Bielewicz will take good care of the license.

Oh wait...

:lol

Mike is getting his pathetic end in the BBs saga he so deserves. Touring bumfuck nowhere with a hack band and a washed up replacement member. He had his chance for one last escape, but blew it. You can tell from interviews the man is miserable on the inside and is really a bitter old man reliving his teenage years of BBs stardom.  

Billy, will you bring back duke of earl? ;)

I'd rather get fisted by Freddy Krueger than hear the song again. I'd rather bathe in sulfuric acid than hear it . I'd rather tie jumper cables to my balls than hear that song again. I'd rather...okay you get the point. :lol

This is key, and also is important to keep in mind when others point out "all it would take is a 3 to 1 vote against Mike to pull the license."

My guess is that even if Brian, Al, and Carl's estate were all on PRECISELY the same page and called a vote to strip the license (regardless of what they then did with the license), injunctions and lawsuits would fly perhaps more than we've ever seen with the BB's universe. There are all sorts of legal arguments that could be made at that stage. As Howie says, regardless of the outcome, it could be tied up for YEARS, and the messy nature of how these guys would undertake touring in the meantime would make 1999 seem like nothing. From a PR standpoint, it would just reflect even more poorly on all of them. As it stands now, Mike will go down in the record books as the guy who took the ball and went home.

I said in my previous post that Al may well be the only one would pursue such a vote. But the more I think about it (and probably one of the things that would frustrate someone in his position), Al probably knows all of this as well, or hopefully has lawyers who would tell him if this were the case. So even he probably wouldn't do it.

.

What I think would be interesting would be, in about ten years, to track down the cheerleaders from the 90's and have them do a "30th Anniversary" cheerleading presentation fronting whatever the Beach Boys are composed of at that stage.

But seriously, Brian and Al and Carl's estate need to get something pushed through BRI right now ensuring John Stamos can never be assigned the license. Unless Nelson Bragg is in the band..... and Ernie Knapp.

Hey...enough of that hal...not cool.

The ironic thing (as Stebbins first posted) is that 15 years after all the BBFF mess -- it's the junior member Alan Jardine who is the person that adds the validity to any camp he chooses to play with.

You put Al there next to either one of the two principles -- it's starts feeling a whole lot like "The Beach Boys."

Why did Brian give a big FU to Dave by bringing him in and then burying him in Beck? I bet that is why Dave is giving a big FU to Brian by playing some dates with Mike.

Al does the opposite to a FU and actually praises Mikes band here. BTW. This story says new BW album due early December.

http://www.modbee.com/2014/10/02/3569033_brian-wilson-al-jardine-bring.html?sp=/99/2628/&rh=1

Still, he praised Love’s current band, which includes longtime contributing member Bruce Johnston and carries on under the Beach Boys moniker. And he said he understands Love’s reasoning, even if he doesn’t agree.

“It’s like being divorced and you have a new family. Will you go back to your old family and live with them? No. I imagine that’s what happened for (Mike),” Jardine said.

“Mike has a wonderful band and great guys. But it’s a reasonable facsimile. You want the real thing, don’t you? Why settle for anything less than the best? I think the fans deserve to have the authentic representation of the music.”

I know your post was sarcastic, but I'll just say that Dave's the one bandmate who seems to indisputably not give FUs to anyone. He is simply underutilized often, head-scratchingly so.  
 

I don't get the stuff about when Mike is 'done' and who gets the license after.  If he quits for good, or is stripped of the license and doesn't want to join with the others for a reunion, then that's it, no?  In a touring sense, he brings more authenticity than any of the others.  No Mike Love=not the Beach Boys.

Yea! I bet Mike gives FU to Brian by making billions by touring and singing songs Brian wrote. Same time he gives FU to Dennis and laughs every night thinking about him. Brian gives FU to Mike by singing California Girls and claiming in some old tv-clip that he wrote the lyrics. Plus he has three hot ladies on his new record, which pisses Mike off, 'cause he's the Lovester. Dave gives FUs to everyone, except Al, who gives FU to Mike but not to Brian because he has done that enough in the past. Bruce gives FU to Obama because he has more money than Bruce. Bruce gives also FU to members of this board, 'cause nobody wanted to take a bath with him.

 ;D

I'd take a bath with Bruce if the tub was large enough so we didn't have to touch.

No Carl Wilson=not The Beach Boys (but that's just me)

I hope Brian does get Al, David and Blondie back for another tour in the future. It was great seeing that group on stage and I'd love to see that same group doing a full set of songs.

As is everything with The Beach Boys, this whole situation is just sad. Very few bands are lucky enough to get a resurgence like The Beach Boys did with their C50. Playing the Grammys, having a successful tour and a new album of material go to #3. From playing fairgrounds and racetracks for decades to that is pretty incredible. I understand that the tour was a "one time only" deal but when Brian wanted to do another Beach Boys album and keep the reunited group going, it should have happened. You could have kept up the group in the spotlight, had a new album and tour, Brian's movie and even had a 50th anniversary Pet Sounds tour. Talk about a band (that was washed up to the general public) really coming back at 100% and having a tremendous final chapter. Unfortunately, there are too many egos, wives and bs for something like that to ever happen.

Thank you for your honesty. And, it has reached that point, the point where you and many others are now. Posters know that things likely won't change; Mike is happy and the others won't act. Yet pages and pages are devoted to discussing it. Why? To vent frustration with Mike Love, but mostly to vilify him.  That's really what this discussion is about, and most other threads for that matter. But that's OK; I'm certainly not telling anyone what they can or cannot discuss. I mean, nobody is making me respond...

Exactly, and Al just gave Brian a "big FU" by praising Mike's band. Everything is a "big FU" to somebody somehow.

Isn`t this all getting ridiculously childish?

If anybody posted that they want Mike to try to start stealing away Darian, Probyn, Scott B or whoever they would rightly be slammed for their infantile behaviour. The same surely applies here.

Right so for Mike and Bruce (2 genuine Beach Boys) to tour as The Beach Boys is wrong but for Matt and Billy you would `love it`?

Something tells me they wouldn`t be playing the Olympics either...

Has anyone said that Carl`s family were greedy and horrible? Another case of:

Person A: "Grey isn`t black."
Person B: "Oh, so you`re saying it`s white are you???"

The bottom line is that Mike didn`t need brilliant lawyers to be granted a license to tour as The Beach Boys. He had the majority vote. Al didn`t as he didn`t want to pay what BRI were demanding. Al didn`t have a leg to stand on.

There is no reason for Carl`s estate to vote against Mike as they are still getting a nice income from doing nothing. Nothing greedy about that. Just common sense.

Nicko I wish two things.

I wish you didn't have such a hard on regarding me (I don't know what your deal is -- your issues are yours not mine).
I also wish you had the ability of deduction. Thousands of posts not a lot of traction there, my friend.

"Done" = "Dead."
The licensing brand will continue.

Good way for a reunion to happen again...if it about money....

Get rid of Bruce!

Show would still sound about the same.


Kidding.   I think...

Have Billy c. replace Bruce. ;D

Howie,

 I normally agree with you, but in this case...Nicko is right for calling you out on the Matt and Billy thing. Unless you were joking, that is.

I have an issue with some of the stuff that you have posted. Nothing to do with you personally obviously as I have never met you.

Since you posted that off topic rant in the Jeff thread about Al not being allowed to tour as BB F&F you have made a number of posts that I don`t entirely agree with. Now I know you were communicating with Al at that time (from what you said on here anyway) about the rarities gig he was doing (kudos for your involvement in that btw) and so I presume you have some personal reason for being anti-Mike Love.

Nothing wrong with that at all but I personally think it has meant that a lot of your posts are being written from the heart rather than the head which leads to exaggeration and inaccuracies. Dark grey being described as black as it were.

Hey, I'm cheaper, younger, better looking, and most of the band likes me already!

:lol

Do you have a collection of tommy Bahama clothes? ;)

Salmon -- I don't understand what your issue is.
When and if Mike Love is rendered incapable of carrying the license (approximately the same time and age that ALL the BB's will in effect also be retiring due to similar circumstances), you have an issue with the license being granted to Matt Jardine and Billy Hinsche acting as bandleader?
I needed to be "called out" for that statement?

And is THAT was Nicko was calling me out about?
(Nicko has issues with everything -- the opinions, the facts, knowing something he doesn't. "Prove it!" "Prove it" -- we all knew guys like that growing up, right? It ends with you walking away.)

If FUs do not  exist, it is necessary for fan to invent them.

I thought the Matt and Billy thing was pretty clear. And I agree, they should be offered to "carry the torch" once Mike is done. They are the most qualified and deserving of it.

I don't like arguments, I like discussion. There is a big difference between saying your piece and hearing someone's response than attacking any contradictory viewpoint. I know where I stand in this matter, but I'm not going to take it personally when someone disagrees. Having someone else repeatedly tell me they disagree is different. It quickly turns into "Yeah I got it buddy" and conversation either does or turns nasty soon after. My point is it's sometimes better to stand back once your point is made, and let someone else's voice their though. How many times does one person need to go for blood when Mike Love gets poked by a stick  :P

It has been, in my view, those defending the status quo concerning the touring band who have implied greediness on the part of Carl's estate (and Brian for that matter). Or, if not "greed", than caring more about money than the brand/band/music, etc.

Quickly back to the Al thing, your statement implies Al didn't get the "majority vote" *because* he didn't want to pay the BRI license fee. I don't buy that at all. Al's case for a license or for being in the "Beach Boys" was dead before he had even departed the touring group. It's all in the Stebbins/Marks book; he already knew what was going on, and once he knew Dave was back "in" full time, Al knew he was screwed.

That temporary "non-exclusive" license malarkey wouldn't have panned out either way; it's a non-issue and didn't impact anything other than prolonging the inevitable. The idea of Carl's estate in 1998 to grant non-exclusive licenses may have been well-intentioned, but even if Al had secured such a license, an *exclusive* license would have been issued to Mike soon enough any way, both because that's clearly what Mike wanted all along, and they ALL would have eventually come to realize that having two bands touring as the Beach Boys would have been beyond confusing. The only thing it *may* have prevented was the 1999 injunction attempts against Al's band.

Reading this thread I have come the conclusion that:
1. You are always right
2. You are never wrong
3. Shades of gray become whatever color of your own choosing.
4. You are the man with all the answers and correct assumptions and conclusions.

You need to get in touch with your contacts and take over BRI management. You are truly wasting your talents here and elsewhere. Saying all that, I expect you to have a full seven man Beach Boys reunion no later than January 31st. Get moving, times-a-wasting. ;)

I don't think so in this context. The context being the opinion that Brian's band is superior, and the best guys from Mike's band are Totten and Cowsill. Hence, having those guys join Brian's band (then nearly literally being the C50 band minus the two or three principals) would be the best outcome.

I don't take it as a "Mike's band stole a guy away, so Brian's should too." I took it more as a "hey, if we're going to start moving members back and forth, I wish BriMel had convinced Totten and Cowsill to join."

It's a non-issue anyway, as Totten and Cowsill will play over 100 shows with Mike while Brian's band has play something like four or five gigs this year so far. Barring a few scheduling conflicts, Foskett, Totten and Cowsill could have been in BOTH Brian's and Mike's band.

Again, I think this requires context. The idea here being that it's possibly inevitable that they will continue to wring revenue out of the trademark when all the actual BB members are dead or can no longer perform. So, *if* such a thing is going to happen anyway, would we rather have someone at least tangentially connected to the band, or a bunch of Broadway-cast fill-ins?

My own opinion is that there is a far different standard when there are no longer ANY willing or able actual BB principle members available.

i thought you meant like right now, like to take the license away from Mike. My apologies.

To be perfectly frank, though, i wouldn't consider a Matt Jardine/Billy Hinsche band 'the Beach Boys', just like i don't consider the Mike Love group 'the Beach Boys'. That's not to denigrate anybody's ability in the band, either. I just think the band name should have been retired when Carl died (and only used for the reunited band).

-Billy C.

Beyond the fact that implicit in nearly all of the comments on this board is that it is *opinion*, I think folks like Howie and Jon Stebbins make some of the most on-point, clear, concise commentaries (yes, they are *commentaries*, not statements made to be certified 100% objective fact) I've ever read on this board.

Things with the BB's are indeed often a million shades of grey. But in analyzing specific actions or events, it's just too easy to throw your hands up in the air and offer "it's a grey area, it could be this or it could be that."

Stuff like saying Foskett's band move being an "F U" is a direct, blunt statement made for effect. It's something that one can say and believe it's true, but its bluntness doesn't discount the possibility that there are *also* other factors at play. I think this sort of statement is meant to counter what some (including myself) would feel is a rather overly-naïve view that everything is fine and there's zero inter-band, inter-"camp" politics at play when Foskett leaves Brian's band and joins Mike's.

Y'know what dr. beach boy? Maybe you're right.
All I know is that I continue to write, produce, and consult for all the factions of the band we're discussing.
Working on multiple BB-related projects as I write this.
My ideas are welcomed (and they know they're mine because I actually use my name, dr.)

We can only hope someone like Matt and Billy would at least try to call the thing "A Tribute to the Beach Boys" or something. Or "Brother Records Presents The Beach Boys."

I think a lot would have to do with whether the original BB's are still alive, but retired, when such a thing might happen, versus something like this happening because some or all of them are deceased.

Howie, I hope you don't mind me saying this and that it's clear I have no dog in whatever debates are going on in this thread between you and drbeachboy or nicko or whoever. I do want to comment on what seems to me to be a pattern of your attitude about posting under one's real name. (At least I have noticed you mentioning it several times.)

I think you're wrong to judge those who don't so harshly. If you, Jon Stebbins, Peter Carlin, Stephen Desper, Andrew Doe, and various others want to post under your own full names, that's fine. I'd note, however, that most people online--at least on this board--who post under their real names were, are, or probably plan to sell or promote their work. That's fine, no problem, but it's an obvious professional/financial/promotional interest.

For those people not selling anything, a message board is often an escape. An avatar is hardly nefarious, and less uncommon. It's just not a big deal. If one were a journalist, it would matter. If one were presenting oneself as some Beach Boys insider or expert but refusing to be named, it would matter. But for a place to kill some time talking about what it means that some backup singer left one group for another, it just doesn't matter. There is no moral or behavioral shortcoming in using a fake name in that situation. People have reasons, and the reasons don't even matter, frankly. Maybe someone doesn't want a public profile online. It's just nobody else's business, and doesn't affect the quality of discussion on a message board about pop music.

There are people who hide behind the anonymity of the Internet to behave horribly, and that's unfortunate. But realistically, one could use a real (or real-sounding) name and behave the same way, because the anonymity in that respect isn't about literal anonymity, but rather the disconnect between people who have often never met using the medium to unload the way they wouldn't in person. So that's not really the point either.

Whatever your issue with it is, you're obviously in the minority (as evidenced by a quick perusal of user names). I hope you can see people aren't doing it for any malicious or sneaky reasons. It's just the way some of us choose to use the Internet.

This is meant in good faith. Keep up your work.

 - Luther, who enjoys the name "the captain" in tribute to Don Vliet--a coward for not using his real name!?--and because he likes using a title to sound important.

(you're welcome to my last name if you want it. Or my SSN, for all I care. Just PM me for it.)

i think they would too...can't see them using the band name with 'tribute'  or something.  Neither strike me as the guys who would feel comfortable using the band name without some kind of qualifier.

Thanks Luther...i had taken slight offense to that too; I used to post under my real name for many years,  until i was rejected for a job due to a post i made...apparently a background check entails googling someone's name and email address. Doesn't change anything about me, and hell, we still talk to the same people,  so whatever.

Personally, if we can talk honestly without any digs intended, I feel the made-up names are both immature and creepy (fake names on the Internet -- just doesn't have a good ring to it.) That's just my take, and why I use my name. My name, my words. My email's there, too. It's not about trying to sell anything. When I meet people I stand straight, I look them in the eye, shake their hand, and say my name. Some people don't -- but I do.

Ultimately, I don't care (or really only notice) what anyone calls themselves (although I admit it's confusing when it's silly or unpronounceable) but I DO take umbrage with someone taking me to task or attempting to slam me for posting a very educated opinion or stating something that they don't yet know while using some fake name (read: someone who would probably never have the gumption to do so if they didn't.)

You know, Howie and Nick and Jude and whoever the hell else with an opinion on this oughta get some boxing gloves on and duke it out in the backyard. Last guy standing wins and gets their way and it's agreed that there's no more posts on the subject by the parties involved. The subject of this C50 ending and band politics is SOOOOOO old hat and it seems like half the threads here invariably take a turn into this effing subject of the C50 ending and why and why they didn't do this or that and which faction of The Beach Boys is the way they are and why others are not and there's GOTTA be something else to discuss, don'tcha think? This thing's been milked for all it's worth and done to death and there's no positive ending in sight! There never will be until Mike Love dies and I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon!

I think you conflate good manners and personal integrity with online openness, and deviance with online anonymity. I'd just hope you reconsider your oft-stated feelings on the matter, especially in that you're in the minority. You're welcome to your opinion, though.

With respect to it not being about selling anything, you must admit it's a remarkable coincidence how those whose brands stand to gain by being public disproportionately use their names, while those whose don't, don't. And as Billy noted, there are real consequences for Google searches would-be employers deem unseemly. (I can confirm that my company does just that.) I'll take ongoing employment over righteous name-pride on a message board every time.

Anyway, we've exchanged opinions and disagree. No need to belabor the points.

I've already explained why I don't use my own name, but as I am starting my new job on 3 November, and have already passed my background check, it's Billy Castillo. I don't consider me using a different username as 'creepy', and as for it being 'immature', well...okay, so it's a pun. Humor happens to be a great part of who I am, as anybody whose known me for the 15 years I've been posting on BB forums can attest to. I also wouldn't blame anybody for not wanting to use their name online, what with internet stalking being what it is today (and as someone who has been the victim of identity theft , there's that to consider too).

I don't know if the second paragraph is directed towards me or not, but if it is...as I said earlier, I have already apologized for misunderstanding your post earlier. And again, since I am using a pseudonym, if that statement means less, you can always check with Andrew,  Scott, Jon, and quite a few others...they'd vouch for me.

Has this board really come to this? Are we really having an issue with whether or not it's okay to post under a different name, when there's so much GOOD we can be discussing? Brian's got an album coming up soon which by all accounts, is going to be great. That's just one thing right there.

Meh....all of these years being a mod here, and sometimes I wonder why I bother.

Sure there is Mikie, but it is the defining topic of this era.

Look, there are people who know some of the story, most of the story, and some very, very specific sides to the story. And it's very hard to hear any side and not be sucked in by it. And it's confusing -- you have Al saying ON FILM ". . . for the very last time" -- and I know for a fact that he never once subscribed to or believed that. Ever. He ABSOLUTELY thought it was back for good.  BLONDIE coming back (!!!!!), the Ella Awards -- and the reasons for why people were there and the repercussions of people being there -- are all a continuation/aftershock of C50. People bouncing between bands -- allegiances shifting; that's all due directly to C50.

It's not the be all and end all -- but it's pretty f***ing huge.
 

I agree in that it should've continued. We all know the various reasons why it didn't, and it couldn't, continue (at least not without certain people making concessions/sucking up their egos), but that doesn't make it any less of a *massive* missed opportunity. After the show I went to, and seeing others online...going from the reunited group to the various solo factions is like going from prime rib to Whataburger. Hey, Whataburger is pretty damn good for a fast food burger joint, but nothing beats a succlent prime rib cooked to a perfect medium rare.

If I *had* to pick, I'd see Brian with this current incarnation of his band (and if Scott and John were onboard with him, it would be the greatest backing band in the history of existence, but I digress...) but I'd rather see them all back together.

My name is Dirk. I'm not hiding anything. You sir, have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be so pompous, many folks here use handles on this board.

Howie's got a dumb angel on his shoulder. No chip whatsoever. He's the opposite of pompous. He's matter of fact, direct, even harsh, but never uninformed. I can'i believe he has much energy to expend with two boys under 5 to look after. But man, he's letting his opinions fly lately and stuff is being revealed. The board wins.

Hey, my name's Cindy. I got online when we were all being warned about the need to hide our identities from online stalkers. As a result, I started my internet life with a handle and have continued the practice. Facebook gave me panic attacks at first, because I was so conditioned not to let personal info out online.

Having said that, I appreciate our insiders who  come on here and share observations. Even if they can't share every detail, I'm aware of the fact that these guys know a lot more than I do, and their insights are more valuable to the discussion than my mere conjecture.

It would seem that C50 opened a can of worms in Beach Boys land and the fallout continues. I only hope the "boys" can eventually be men about it all and end it well. If not, well… the music transcends the acrimony. It always has.

Can't speak for the others (and thanks for including me in such august company), but in my case, that's the most misguided and frankly patronizing load of twaddle I've read on this forum in years, and dammit there's been some stiff competition. I've posted under my own name here and elsewhere (not invariably, granted) since I came online in 1998, at which point I had precisely nothing to push financially. Nor have I now. Nothing obvious about it whatsoever. I post under my own name for the following reasons:

1 - I can't conjure up a handle that doesn't strike me as either corny or infantile...
2 - my writing style is such that I'd be rumbled in roughly 30 minutes, as indeed I was over on The Hoff...
3 - obviously, for the kudos and the myriad opportunities for ego massage: don't want anyone else getting the credit...
4 - but most importantly, I have no problem posting what I have to say standing up in plain sight as opposed to hiding behind a nomme du guerre because I believe in what I say on this subject. Nor do I post in the third person, or make ludicrous statements which I try to explain away by claiming English isn't my first language. I get it wrong, I hold my hands up and 'fess up. I happen to quite like this band: can't be sure the same is true of some other posters, past & present.

So, kindly don't inform me why I'm posting under my own name, especially if you're going to be so comically wide of the mark.

I don't think he was referring to you in the company of trying to promote yourself, just in the company of those who post under their own name (and actually, you don't...just your initials ;)  )

"I'd note, however, that most people online--at least on this board--who post under their real names were, are, or probably plan to sell or promote their work."

You wuz sayin' ?  ;D

I used to post on different boards as "friendly" and other similar names, but then someone started posting on the BBB board as "Eric A." saying that new setlists had just been posted on the setlist archive. When I confronted the person on the board, they tried to make it seem like I was the pretender. Since then, I've posted only as myself. But I definitely don't think that people posting under anonymous handles are doing anything wrong. We don't owe anyone here an explanation of who we are, or any of our personal information should we decide not to disperse it.

most= not all.

Unless it involves my daughter sneaking some of my frozen yogurt 'I ate most of it, not all, daddy'. *looks in pint, sees half a cherry and about half a teaspoon of base left* :lol

Exactly.

You can keep on making little digs about the person that I am, the way that I am wired  and that I have a hard on by all means.  :)

But I made a post in another thread that you may have missed that hopefully makes my point succinctly.


I don`t query everything that you write but I do query the points that I disagree with and there have been quite a few since you started posting regularly again recently. I completely respect that you write about the band but I just don`t believe that means that none of your comments should ever be questioned.

This thread has been excellent and cathartic and has remained civil for the most part, great job everyone. @Mikie: it's not old hat, it's an ongoing state of affairs and deserves whatever fresh insight and creative thought we care to devote to it. I thought of another point. If, and I mean IF, the original band members have truly irreconcilable personal differences that cause them inordinate stress when they are in close proximity to each other, such as Pink Floyd seem to, that should also excuse any ethical or propriety-based obligation to perform under the original group name as a unit. I don't think that's the case with the "Boys".

In such situations, the perpetuation of the music itself takes precedence IMO, although some modification of the basic name might be in order. Fleetwood Mac is another example that I didn't mention before, fortunately after much turmoil through the years they have apparently come to a very good place with each other, and I'm sure no one faction within their group would dream of touring under the name unless the others just didn't want to be a part of it any more, as was the case with Christine McVie for the last 15 years, and when she decided to return for a full tour and album after a few 2012 outings went well she was naturally welcomed back with open arms. They are an example of a band that has handled these issues with class, the opposite of the post-C50 BBs.

The fact that we are discussing these issues with such passion is, to me, indicative and a wonderful affirmation of the fervid idealism that this group, its identity and its music inspire in those to whom it resonates with. Either that or we all need to get lives. IMO we have them already (most of us, anyway), and are extremely fortunate that this music is a part of them.

I was simply referring to the statement in the court document that BRI wanted Al to pay 17.5% to tour as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

I completely agree that Al wasn`t going to tour in a group calling itself The Beach Boys but that was never part of the equation.

It is interesting that you talk about confusion over the name because there are obviously quite varied opinions about that on this board. Some believe that Al touring using that name caused so little confusion that he should have been able to use it for free for example...

Now the ideal financially for BRI would seem to have been for Mike to go out doing 100 dates while paying them 20% with Al going out playing how ever many shows they could as BB F&F and paying 17.5%. Obviously Al didn`t feel he could pay that so it became a moot point.

An obvious reason to use a handle is simply the fact of posting during work-time.  Not just that current employers/colleagues would see it, but any future employers too when googling your name.

Information-wise, sure the board wins. I appreciate that Howie comes here to share it. You share your information as well, but you don't get cocky and call people out if somebody asks you a question or wants clarification or if opinion, questions it. I believe you treat people how you would like to be treated.

Wouldn't the ideal position for BRI be to have one touring Beach Boys unit and receive 100%? In my opinion the issuing of a license to one member of BRI was an enormous mistake that has damaged the Beach Boys reputation and weakened the brand.

I can't help but think that there have been periods over the last twenty years or so when there has been some serious  momentum behind the Beach Boys name. There was something of a renaissance of support centred around Brian's reputation as the 'genius' architect of the Beach Boys work, particularly around Pet Sounds and onwards. Brian and the Beach Boys have been name-checked and praised as influences by an enormous number of well-respected names in music, giving the potential to open them up to new generations of fans. That's continued on and off over the years but there's been next to no ability to capitalise on those opportunities because the visible and tangible representation of the Beach Boys has been Mike and Bruce. I don't say any of this as a dig at either of them, but the touring hits show featuring one original member (who's might almost be as famous for litigation as he is for his lyrics) isn't going to be something that can feed into or feed off any increase in critical reception and the potential for a growing fan base as a result.

Having a touring group that people would see and/or accept as THE Beach Boys would have allowed all sorts of opportunities for generating new fans and interest and therefore sales for BRI. In 2012 we had exactly that and it was an incredible success, with the Beach Boys appearing all over the place and having a top-3 album and rave reviews for the live shows. We didn't have that in 2004 when Brian finished Smile, we didn't have it in 2011 when the Smile Sessions box set came out and we didn't have a 2013 'Made in California' tour. I'm not saying they would have all been worthwhile or successful but it's clear that the Beach Boys lack the ability to drive any sort of campaign without a recognisable group touring or doing promotional work. I know some people will say that no-one knows or cares who anyone in the Beach Boys is except maybe for Brian, but I think that problem is self-perpetuating. If the touring entity is made up of one original member, people won't care who's on stage or take more that a passing interest in what the Beach Boys are doing. If seeing the Beach Boys means seeing every living member of one of the greatest bands of all time, maybe people will start to notice who's there and identify more with the people they see on stage. Then a Beach Boys shows is more of an event and something more significant.

All just my opinion, but it's hard to see how the license arrangements and everything that's happened since 1998 has really served anyone but Mike that well. The Beach Boys name has been spread thinly and is now weak as a result, through a billion different budget-priced compilations of hits and constant touring by Mike and a band. It should be allowed to return to a name that means something.

Maybe " Jon Stebbins " is only the professional name he uses as an author/pundit, with his given name being  something entirely different such as Shlomo Mcsherly? 

I was referring only to the situation after Carl`s death.

Sure things would have been different in 2012. It still wouldn`t be 100% though I guess as that would imply that Carl`s estate would be getting a 25% cut.

Even if Mike hadn`t been given the license though, I`m not sure Brian would have been interested in touring with The Beach Boys over those years. There is that interview he gave in 1998 where he said he was planning to go on tour with The Beach Boys in 1999 though so who knows...

I win!

(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ftrrdQr21qb8pcco1_500.gif)

The problem with the licenses and the fees for those licenses is that I’ve never seen any evidence that BRI was going to issue licenses concerning specific name variants. Also, I think there’s a huge difference between touring as “Beach Boys Family & Friends” versus “The Beach Boys.” Look at 1999. For most of the year, Al was able to use the name. Yet, he still didn’t get anywhere near as many bookings as a typical touring year for “The Beach Boys.” When you’re the *secondary* touring group, when “The Beach Boys” have the long-standing relationships with venues and booking agents, and when they can actually use the name “The Beach Boys” while you’re touring with modifiers on it, that “license” is worth FAR less.

I recall reading in the court papers about the “proposed” terms for a license for Al. Yes, they were more appealing than those for Mike’s. But I think it was still too much to pay when you’re having to follow-up behind the “primary” licensee doing over 100 shows per year with the full name. You’re basically left with the scraps that the primary licensee doesn’t take, and/or playing even more out-of-the-way markets than Mike typically plays. Didn’t Al play a gig in Alaska in 1999? So I can understand why even that reduced license didn’t seem fair or appealing to Al, and why he attempted (and failed) to make an argument that he didn’t need a license.

But, as Howie alluded to in one of his previous posts, I think going after Al in 1999 was about pettiness and ugliness and vengefulness and all of that. Yes, there were sound technical legal reasons for BRI to go after him. But I don’t think that’s what motivated them, or at least was not the only motivations. Al was doing scattered bookings under the BBFF name, and I don’t think there was particularly compelling evidence of mass confusion surrounding Al’s bookings. There were allegedly a lot of “hunts” going on for “confused” concertgoers. I also think there was scant evidence that Al’s BBFF band were “stealing” potential bookings from Mike’s band. As I said, they were taking the leftover scraps as far as bookings. I even recall some theories/assertions (of which I have no direct evidence) that a few BBFF bookings were being canceled and replaced with bookings for “The Beach Boys.”

I think the main reason Al’s band was any kind of threat was because it was getting good reviews; and some reviews were noting their show had a vocal freshness and energy missing for recent “Beach Boys” tours (including tours Al had been on). It’s ironic, because even the best reviews in the world weren’t going to lead to Al’s BBFF overtaking Mike’s “Beach Boys” on the touring market. Al’s band would have had to be the most amazing band ever, and Mike would have had to start having band members show up wasted and forgetting chords and lyrics and canceling random gigs here and there for Al’s band to make any significant dent into Mike’s touring market share.

The best Al could have hoped for was to essentially fill the new role of Mike’s “California Beach Band”; essentially the more “basic” model version of the Beach Boys that costs less money.

I do think it’s too bad Al didn’t dig in in 2000 as “Al Jardine’s Family & Friends” and really hone and refine that band concept, because it was really enjoyable. The vocals were great, in some ways even better than Brian’s band in my opinion. The musicians sounded good, on par with the best late 70’s/80’s BB touring bands (albeit with far better drumming from Bobby Figueroa), and they had started into digging into some deep, interesting rarities. Al had a lot of *ideas* about really intricate, deep-cut setlists. Doing stuff like “The Trader” and “Steamboat” and “Be Here in the Morning.” But that all got derailed.

Honestly I can`t think of any reason why Brian (or his representative) or Carl`s estate would have any issues with these things. Obviously we all know that Mike had big issues with Al at that time but Brian and Carl`s estate could have signed the 5% contract that Al drew up. That fact that they didn`t is crucial because if they had Mike wouldn`t have had a leg to stand on.

I can completely understand Al not wanting to pay the 17.5% too but when he made the decision not to he sealed his fate really. If the decision had been taken that no license was needed to use `The Beach Boys blah blah blah` as a touring group name then that would obviously have been a big problem for BRI.

I completely agree with you about how good Al`s group was at that time but unfortunately I don`t think there`s anyway they could have a future after he decided he couldn`t pay for the license. I`ve said before that, if push comes to shove, Al is probably my favourite Beach Boy but sadly he isn`t a businessman. To start a new group with 6 lead singers and more members on stage than Brian currently has was never going to make much business sense.

I know Al said that he had been offered plenty of club gigs after he lost the license and it`s a real shame these didn`t happen. Al could definitely have taken out a much smaller band than he did and still put on a great show.

I'd say there are a few regulars on this board who might disagree that I don't get cocky etc... There were seemingly endless contentious exchanges with a couple of regulars here, that turned highly negative and left me somewhat uninterested in participating on this board. But you know, things evolve, time heals, people are people, I'm no saint. I can relate to why Howie gets a little edgy, he's vastly informed compared to most posters here. He's interviewed dozens more insiders than me. He has personal friendships with many names we'd all recognize and is fed information that broadens his perspective, but that at times cannot be articulated in the absolute direct way that some folks seem to require to give credence. I've had similar problems here. There were cases where the sharing of my insider knowledge was not only rejected but even ridiculed and said to be a "spin". This will frustrate a guy. Why? Well, as cocky as it sounds, because they don't know sh*t compared to me. But saying it in those terms only gets you what Howie has gotten lately from a few of our fellow Smiley Smilers. So yes, i do try to treat people respectfully, but like Howie, i also have a history here of conflict and negativity with certain people. And once it gets to that point it's always better to be confronting a person with a real name, a known entity, because otherwise it's like swinging at ghosts. And giving endless clarifications can easily turn into a bottomless pit and has for me many times with certain posters. It's a peculiar dance, wanting to inform the exchange, but without coming off as too cocky, and without over-exposing your sources, and without seeming like you are hiding behind that excuse. It can be kind of a no win. Anyway, I think we are doing better than most boards in all ways.

I think the offer of a non-exclusive license to Al is a sort of unintended red herring in terms of Al's ultimate fate. They would have moved to an exclusive license for Mike either way. There's obviously no way to prove this hypothetical scenario, but I think all the evidence as well as common sense support this.

If Al had paid for that non-exclusive license, I don't we would have had 15 years of two licensed Beach Boys bands. No way. I think Mike would have had the exclusive license regardless of what Al did, and it probably would have occurred by 1999 or 2000 either way. There was too much leverage being asserted. As Al knew, Mike had been working on getting the setup just the way he wanted back in the 90's when Al and Carl were still touring. There's no way Mike would have gone for the two licenses co-existing. Indeed, precisely what unfolded was an exclusive license for Mike. That exclusive license didn't happen simply because Al didn't pay for a non-exclusive license. I think the wheels were turning and the ball was rolling on securing that exclusive license independent of Al's actions.

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license. 

It's all about Mike... ;)

Nah, at the time it was all about Brian (or his representative) and Carl`s estate.  ;)

They briefly had the power...

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

Before I respond to that statement, can you and I agree that upon payment for your next book, that I get it autographed and any addendums and promo materials, pictures, posters etc. will be forthcoming in my direction?  :-D

I wasn't going to add anything more to this, but I guess I can't help myself.  :-D

My thought is a pretty simple one, again when I hinted at it a few nights ago someone posted that perhaps it is too simple for the situations at hand, and I sadly agree.

Consider if the same standards were applied to any current or future naming issues regarding bands and tours that apply to official releases of recordings. There are no gray areas regarding an album release labeled "The Beach Boys", or any new music or recordings under that name. The only "Beach Boys" album releases since Carl's passing have had all or nearly all original or semi-original band members participating. Not counting the reissues and box sets, the only so-called "new" Beach Boys albums have had Brian, Mike, Al, David, Bruce on those tracks to varying degrees of participation. There is no gray area, nor is there a chance of anything less than that group of musicians releasing anything on their own minus the others and calling it a "Beach Boys album".

That's a good thing. When there have been individual releases, going back to NASCAR, even that cover was not labeled "The Beach Boys", it was labeled "of the Beach Boys" or "Beach Boys'..." etc, not suggesting fans were buying a Beach Boys album because they're not all there on the tracks. The promotions can say "of the Beach Boys", "Founding member of the Beach Boys", "original Beach Boys member" etc, but anything less than a collective group participation is not and cannot be called "The Beach Boys".

That's painfully simple, right? It clears everything up for fans. When the new album came out in 2012, followed by the live album, it was crystal clear that this was The Beach Boys on that record, with the membership you'd expect to hear on a Beach Boys record.

Now it's just my opinion, also in retrospect, but why was that strict naming and labeling standard applied to new recordings and releases but not applied similarly to current or future live tours?

The simplest point could be any band member could tour as a member of the Beach Boys, but like the album releases or DVD's or whatever, without a specific participation of band members, it would not be specific as "this is the 'official' Beach Boys" you're going to see play live. And Al, Mike, Brian, David, Bruce, etc could basically share equal billing on their touring activities (if they wanted) as they earned the right to do as members of the band.

Opinions like that are a dime a dozen, they don't mean much in terms of reality, but it's still something to consider for discussion.

And for the record, my name is "Mike" in case there was any question.......... about that. I've posted under the name "Mikie" on multiple message boards since 1997. So moniker recognition on the boards is very easy and I obviously have no additional alias's to hide behind - what you see is what you get and you always know where to find me. 10-4, over and out.

That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

That's a moot point. None of these issues relevant to this discussion or "licenses" were relevant or even a consideration legally or practically before Carl's passing.

If BRI had voted and already engaged in a contract offering Love an exclusive license, they would not have been able (especially in the immediate, which is what occurred in this case) to void or take away that license.

Perhaps they were "negotiating" a license. But I would tend to doubt that BRI held a vote, voted to issue an exclusive license to Mike, executed that exclusive license, and then simply breached that agreement over fears of Al suing.

If, on the other hand, BRI was working out an exclusive license with Mike (perhaps under the assumption nobody else including Al would even be interesting in such a license, and I've heard that false assumption may have been the case back in 1998), and then another BRI member alerted them to their desire to also pursue some form of license, then that isn't BRI "taking away" Mike's license or "screwing" Mike. That's them at least making a cursory effort to hear out one of their board members.

I'm guessing Mike didn't sue BRI over these issues because there was nothing to sue over, not because he had grounds to sue but he's just a nice guy.

But I'm sorry, Howie Edelson is right. Al got sh**canned and publicly humiliated. He made a number of apparent boneheaded moves in the aftermath. It doesn't look like he got the best legal help either (are we forgetting that at one stage, reported in 2002, Al did sue one of his lawyers for malpractice? Remember that?)

I also apologize for going back on my original intention to not have the IDENTICAL debates over this issue with Cam that took place back in 1999/2000 on the freaking Usenet!  :lol

Why is that?

Unfortunately, your examples of labeling things like CDs are not even always "painfully simple."

Among other things, lawsuits can arise over the *size* of the verbiage. You can have "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks of" in very small lettering and then "THE BEACH BOYS" in much larger lettering. And that may or may not be something others will take issue with or sue over.

Also, *use* of a trademark isn't always clear cut. If you put a CD out and just put "The Beach Boys", or sell tickets as "The Beach Boys", that's clear cut.

But courts ruled Al having "Beach Boys" within the name of his own band was infringing on the trademark.

So would a CD titled "Al Jardine of the BEACH BOYS, and his Family and Friends Band" be allowed?

"Beatlefest" had to change their name, after 25 years or something, to "The Fest for Beatles Fans." So sometimes you can use a trademark if the use is very descriptive.

Touring only adds several extra layers of potential for things to be screwed up, because promoters and venues will start fudging (either out of ineptitude or deceit) how a band is billed.

We will continue to disagree.

Way to keep an open mind!

What would it take for you to come to some sort of consensus, if not change your stance on this, Cam? What proof does Hey Jude, Mr. Edelson and Jon Stebbins have to give you?

You simply don't get it. Cam will NEVER change. Mike can do no wrong in the eye(s) of Cam

And that's all Bgas wrote!

It is painfully simple with The Beach Boys as of 2014 and through the previous decade-plus of their activities, and honestly I don't know why I'm being called on to clarify that.

It's as simple as the fact that nothing can be released as a Beach Boys album without very strict guidelines being met, call them restrictions if you will. There is no middle ground, there is no fudging, there is no gray area there. Let me emphasize, nothing can be labeled as "The Beach Boys" on a new album or single without those restrictions.

My point, which I'll make for the last time so it doesn't get lost in arguing, is that a situation similar to how the NASCAR album or anything related that may have been considered had to be amended with an asterisk of sorts to prevent that album from being sold as or even considered a "Beach Boys" album, as the specifics were not in place to call it that. In 2012 those specifics were in place for two new, non-archival releases, and thus exists a new Beach Boys studio album and a new Beach Boys live album with *no question* as to who is or isn't involved from the band. None whatsoever.

It's simple. My issue: Too bad that when the plans and agreement were drawn up for licensing the name in touring or performance situations and bookings/promotion, it wasn't weighted or negotiated the same way. That's in retrospect, naturally. But those restrictions on naming an album of new music certainly avoided the potential for one or two members to decide to release an album of new music and have fans faced with seeing something other than a legitimate album from the full Beach Boys, as we got in 2012.

No confusion = simple. Painfully simple, actually.

But maybe it is in fact too simple.

I can't think of any other reason other than the board members (other than Mike) decided post '98 that the Beach Boys as a recording entity are worthy of a certain level of quality control, or should be treated in a way that doesn't let the name get dragged down in a manner that tarnishes the brand name. This must have been thought by voters as the option that would benefit the brand name most in the big picture.

That's not to say that the band has never released embarrassing product under the name, but perhaps was this a reaction to Summer in Paradise? (Which, I might add, I genuinely like about 1/3 of as a guilty pleasure).

I have to think that if Mike were allowed to use the Beach Boys name to record new material under, he would at some point post 1998 have done so, don't you think? The only way I think he wouldn't have done so is if he thought there was no way he was going to write new material with Brian again, and was thus not holding out hope for that; if he really thought writing with Brian again would not ever again happen, but he had the legal right to record new "Beach Boys" music, no doubt in my mind we'd have more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums post 1998.

I'm guessing that Mike never pushed or deeply sought out the legal right to have the right to the recording name (which he probably also wouldn't have seen as a cash cow), but quite the opposite for the touring name, which was/is a cash cow, and which Mike wanted control of.

I think Brian and Carl's estate think of the touring name as easy money, and were at the time of voting willing to let Mike have his way for that reason. It must have been decided that the legacy tarnishing potential of the M&B show was relatively speaking less (or not worth the financial sacrifice of retiring), as opposed to the legacy tarnishing potential of more Mike Love-helmed "Beach Boys" albums.

Either that, or Brian always had a vision for, even in the fractured post 1998 time period, eventually wanting to have creative control of another "Beach Boys" album.

I can't really see any other logic in it.

I would think it's mostly down to the idea that Mike was largely only concerned with the touring band. Even by the 80's they seemed largely disinterested in being a "recording artist" that also tours. They turned into a live act that also occasionally did studio work, and even more rarely released it.

A lot of things were mutually convenient. They were less interested in releasing albums while their album sales declined and labels were less interested in signing them. Mike probably wasn't interested in cutting Beach Boys albums on his own under license, and BRI may well have decided against that even if Mike had wanted that. The touring situation is far easier in so many ways: A cleaner source of revenue. A proven source of revenue. It doesn't involve a bunch of creative debates; it's about performing old songs. The infrastructure was and is there.

It doesn't appear Mike is super interested in studio work with or without the other Beach Boys. As with Al, Mike surely could have released a solo album himself. He could have got "Mike Love Not War" up on CD Baby a decade ago.

CenturyDeprived: In a word, "simple".  :)  

If the same standards had been applied to the naming issues of tours and performances as had been applied to the recordings post-1998 or so, we'd have none of these conversations. If the same allowances and guidelines had been applied to touring shows, any original band member would be able to bill his band as an "original member" or something similar, while the "Beach Boys" would have been reserved for things like the 2012 album and C50 tour where the standards for releasing new music applied. All members would have a fair shot at using their earned status and reputation as an original member to book and promote shows if they did not want to tour as a group, and beyond that the marketplace could choose whose band to see, and it would separate the Beach Boys group identity from the members while not removing the association entirely, just like the albums. And the courts may have been far less involved than they have been regarding the name. That's about it. It did not go down that way, and the results are what they are in 2014.

I agree that Mike from the early 80s-on was less interested in new material. I suppose Summer in Paradise only even exists as a belated aftershock of the surprise success of Kokomo.

One must wonder, how differently would the BB story have unfolded if Kokomo never existed? Serious question. Because nearly every single interview from 1988 on has Mike bragging about Kokomo; it seems to have informed most every major decision or justification that Mike has done/said since its release.  

I guess it comes down again, as it always seems to, to Mike being tethered to idea of risk-aversion. I think Mike didn't put "Mike Love Not War" up on CD Baby a decade ago because such a release, even online-only, stood a mighty big chance of falling flat on its face.  I don't think he'd find anyone in the industry who would have advised him otherwise.   It wouldn't have been a big financial risk, but a risk of embarrassment that an entire album didn't do well; look at his reaction when "Looking Back with Love" was mentioned by Brian in the 1989 campfire video scene.

(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Dwight-Schrute-Thats-Very-True.gif)

Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

There really needs to be an episode of Mythbusters dedicated to the Beach Boys featuring Jon as a special guest host 8)

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.

Thanks!

More than I've heard I guess.

Yeah but after all of these years I'm your loyal never-changing bonehead. (dimples)

The Beach Boys released eight albums at least through the end of 1964 (seven plus the live album), plus he was a regular member of the touring band (although missed dates varied from year to year) from mid-1976 through early-mid 1982. The band released five more albums during that time. Throw in "TWGMTR", and that's 14. Throw in the C50 live album and it's 15 albums where the band on the album matched the live lineup.

The overarching point is that most bands have not operated with the "studio" band and "live" band being such disparate entities to the point where two band members are licensing the use of the name solely for touring and can't and don't record albums, while three other members are still living.

For many years, the *only* difference between the "studio" and "live" band was Brian. In 2014, there's a HUGE difference. The live band exists, with two of five living members participating, and that same live band is legally prohibited from releasing any product under the "Beach Boys" name, as an indirect and direct consequence of that band not containing more original members.

The "studio" band, barring 2012, hasn't really existed in decades. Hence, odd situations like, are Brian and Al "former Beach Boys", or just "Beach Boys?" Depends on the definitions. That we have to add a bunch of modifiers and qualifiers is sad and pathetic.

That`s true if there had been a set style of name that they were limited to using.

I guess one reason this would have been less appealing is because BRI would have been getting far less money. And also because `of The Beach Boys` wouldn`t have anything like the selling power for these guys (as I think has been shown).

Obviously we are all influenced by our experiences with the group and personally I think that in the main things turned out positively in terms of the license.

Without The Beach Boys name Mike and Bruce would never have put on the shows they did in 2004 and 2008 where they played 50+ songs including some they had never done before (with Chris Farmer and Scott Totten both doing a great job with the music).

Brian obviously has had numerous highlights since 1998 and many more than we expected.

Al is certainly the one who has been left in the cold and it is a great shame that he hasn`t played more gigs. I think that has been partly down to his choice though.

And then we had the C50 tour and album.

Clearly there have been some disputes about the name for the last couple of years but I don`t think they should obscure all of the highlights there have been since 1998.

Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

The problem I have is when something is done as an exclusionary process. Much of what Mike has done with the "license" has been inherently exclusionary.

They didn't all break up and end up doing what they wanted to do. Articles back in 1998/99 specifically said that Mike did not want to appear on tour with Al (and also stated that Mike had at some point prior to Carl's death decided he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl either, "out of love" for him). That's okay; there are plenty of times when a band doesn't want to work together anymore. But their setup was not such that they could kick members out, at least corporate members. So instead the closest thing to that was undertaken. Basically break up, then reform without Al but continue to use the name. It is indeed effectively s**tcanning Al.

And that's not even getting into C50, which was even more *direct* exclusionary process. Back in 1998, Brian was disinterested and Al didn't appear to know exactly what he wanted to do. In 2012, it was crystal clear what everyone wanted to do. The move to go back to the "status quo" was directly exclusionary at that point.

Well I can certainly understand the viewpoint that morally one member shouldn`t be touring as `The Beach Boys`.

But then that has to balanced against the physical reality of the fact that `Mike Love of The Beach Boys` would have been playing crappier venues with less interesting set lists and probably a worse band.

Now again this is where people`s personal experiences come into it. Those who haven`t enjoyed Mike and Bruce`s shows will say that would be no loss. But, perhaps because I have seen them at their best, I wouldn`t trade hearing Mike singing Here Today, David singing Forever, Bruce singing Disney Girls etc. for the aforementioned scenario.

Not to mention the fact that it seems like none of BRI supported the idea of the use of, `....of The Beach Boys` at that time.

Apparently. 15 out 28 is not "almost always".

 I wonder how it stacks up if go the other way and you count the number of concerts that matched the studio band?

It's more than half ! Jesus man are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing, and with Jon of all people?  Really?! C'mon man...I've seen you on the BB/BW forums for many years...I know you're smarter than this. It's okay to admit you're wrong...it happens to the best of us.

So you read that and thought I meant half is almost always?

You said almost always. Half is not almost always. Therefore you made a mistake.

But you do realize that such as scenario would (in my estimation) very likely have lead to a C50 type of situation lasting much longer, right? I mean, the BBs story is a Choose Your Own Adventure type of universe, where any one boneheaded (or not, though usually so) decision can have all sorts of ramifications down the line.

If by BRI votes, Mike post 1998 had been allowed to only tour as "Mike Love of The Beach Boys", he would most certainly have still done it (if that's all that the votes allowed him to do)... but to get back into a much bigger limelight (and to make much bigger cash), relatively speaking, I don't have much doubt that he'd have acquiesced to many of the things that he threw a hissy fit over in 2012. Basically, his M&B show would probably still be fun fun fun for him, but it would not be nearly as profitable nor as lavish (if you can call its current in carnation that).

I think Mike would still *want* total control as he has now, but I think that having total control over the live version of his band playing BB songs and most importantly CALLED THE BEACH BOYS is really what he wants most.

What I'm saying is, that barring time travel to prove my point, I feel confident in hypothesizing that despite the lack of the better elements/performances that have occasionally come out of the M&B show, depriving Mike of the BB name in 1998 (while reducing short term income for BRI) would very likely have led to a scenario where there was more collaboration, if only out of Mike having no choice but to relent to certain conditions for "The Beach Boys" to exist again. Maybe there'd be more money to be made too in the long run, but I'm not quite as confident about that guess. Either way, there'd be even more pent up demand for a reunion than there was in 2012, because the name would have been 100% dormant for 14+ years. And that's important.

Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, letting Mike Love run with too much control and free reign has not exactly been beneficial career/image-wise to the Beach Boys.

I literally said it is NOT almost always. What the hell are you talking about?

Err, this:

(http://www.tailoredmail.com/TailoredMail/TailoredNews/images/blog/dart-board-hi.png)

What? I must have had a stroke.

I said it was almost always, Jon pointed out that it is more than half going by albums and I agreed 15 out of 28 is NOT almost always. What am I  missing?

If Al Jardine actively and has vocalized that he "wants" to be back in The Beach Boys, and has for a long time, has Mike ever been asked why Al isn't part of the band? For well over a decade, Brian was "doing his own thing" carving out a solo career, but Brian never publicly mentioned (until 2012, post C50 fallout, unless I'm mistaken) that he wanted to be a BB again but felt excluded. But Al has mentioned/alluded toward that repeatedly, to my knowledge, a number of times between 1998 to present.

Mike likes to conveniently say "Al's doing his own thing", and I've heard him say that Al has exhibited a "negative" attitude, but is that pretty much the extent of Mike's public reasoning? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this is all about Mike wanting total control, but it should be owned up to as such by the dude himself.  Mike's non-addressing the issue makes his response equate to "womp womp, because I can" to me, and that is not cool to the extreme.  And I get that bands and bandmates have creative and sometimes irreconcilable differences, I truly do...but a 30+ year bandmate truly deserved better. Because it really seems to have been a s**tcanning situation, which fortunately for Mike seemed to relatively fly under the media radar when it first happened in 1998.  

Oh how I bet Mike wishes that Bruce had a corporate vote and that Al didn't.

Oh I can certainly agree that if Mike hadn`t got the rights to the license that he would have been much more willing to carry on with the C50 tour. How long it would have continued is obviously anybody`s guess. I think it`s impossible to say whether Brian would have played a huge number of gigs in 2014 if he was still in the touring group, for example.

But, as you say, every action has ramifications. For example, I would say that one of the things that helped to make the C50 tour so great was the fact that Brian and his band AND Mike and Bruce and their band had been touring so much previously.

If Mike had been touring as `Mike Love of the Beach Boys` then it is easy to imagine him doing county fairs, casinos, birthday parties, weddings and circumcisions while playing the meat and potato sets. Would he have been so willing to shift straight from that to the 60 song set that they played during C50? Debatable.

Would John Cowsill and Scott Totten have been part of the touring? Impossible to say.

And would the attention to detail from Mike have been there? Mike`s singing is certainly better now that it was in the 1990s when it was far too nasal. If he had been touring crappy venues with another musical director then who can say whether that improvement would have occurred.

I guess this is all a round about way of saying that I can`t look back on gigs that I thought were pretty great at the time (those 2004 and 2008 shows) and wish they`d never happened based on a hypothetical future ("I had a great time but I wish I hadn`t because I might have been able to have an even greater time later."  ;) ). Now, as I said, for people who haven`t enjoyed Mike and Bruce`s touring I can completely understand why they would feel very differently.

I still say that the post-1998 period has been a great time to be a Beach Boys fan. Could it have been an even better time if the C50 tour had carried on? Certainly. But that doesn`t discredit everything else that has happened for me.

Mike has spoken about the Peter Cetera tour thing and Al bringing lawsuits against BRI. That is the best answer you are probably going to get.

Mike may well wish that Bruce had had a corporate vote but, as it happens, it wouldn`t have made much difference. Al could never get anyone else to vote for him anyway...

Even those who more ardently come to Mike's defense more than others must admit to (what to me) is a pretty irrefutable thing: the less power Mike Love has over the brand name, the more he is willing to compromise and let great stuff eventually happen. Sometimes great stuff happens anyway, yes. I think about how slightly awkward (I'm not imagining that, am I?) Mike looks in the "Never Learn Not to Love" clip, where he was less in control than he probably wanted to be (I do almost feel bad for him here, since he was probably a tad jealous):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0v2bVX8j4

I know he wants to be the dude in control, but when the control that he truly seeks is just out of his reach, and he has no other choice but to let other BBs make the final call on a great number of decisions, the better the result usually is.  

Does anyone know who makes Carl's estates decisions? Is it his Wife, Kids, Management or was most of it laid out in his will?  I also though Carl bought Dennis's shares in BRI so if he had wanted he couldn't he have 2 vote<his estate>.

Is there a "block this member's posts from appearing" button? Because this would come in might handy on this thread for me (and others I'm sure). I think our collective blood pressure would drop a couple hundred points.

I wish there *was* an ignore feature on this board. I've been tooting that horn for a long time. I have no idea how to make it happen.

Nope - Dennis' estate sold his share back to BRI for a reduction in his debts, or so I recall. Clarification welcomed.

If Carl, or his estate, did have two votes, the past 25-odd years would have been very different, as they could have sided with any other single member and won any vote 3-2.

One thing I never understood...so even after he died, Dennis (in this case, his estate) actually owed BRI money? That's just...wow. Technically, he owed himself money, then.

My head hurts.

I think they were more general debts: overdrafts, bar tabs, the like. Jon would know, or Ed.

Ahhh...gotcha...that makes sense.

I wish there were both.

"The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band."

According to Hey Jude the touring band has been different from the recording band 80% of their career if Brian toured about 10 years out of the 52. Not counting times when other members were not touring for various reasons.

...but for nearly half of those 52 years, there wasn't a recording band to be different from.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Please don't feed the animals....

Some animals make their home at the zoo.

Yes, again, looking at it that way, I am wrong.

or perhaps, as my dad used to opine: "often outvoted, but never wrong"

i remember the zoo :lol

 :lol

 :lol

Hey when you fellas get back from the zoo, the recording group and the touring group did coincide more or less for 15 of there 28 or 29  studio albums and that occured over a spread out 10 year period more or less according to Hey Jude. I have to insist that it is equally true that in their almost 52 year career that that coincidence only amounted to less then 20% of the touring band's performances. So go ahead and quibble with my "almost always" but it seems to me an over 80% difference between the touring group in performance and any form of the recording group on album is close enough.

Anyways, carry on with your zoo spotting.

trainspotting leaves one more refreshed, eh?