The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: surf patrol on December 21, 2015, 01:49:26 PM



Title: Randell Kirsch
Post by: surf patrol on December 21, 2015, 01:49:26 PM
 :3d


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 21, 2015, 02:06:02 PM
If you don't know why he left, how do you "know" he was laid off, or by whom? Whatever the circumstances are, they've not been made public.
Apparently he's currently playing with a band called Among The Villains.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 21, 2015, 10:00:56 PM
 Wonder what he is doing since getting layed off by Beach Boys management ie. Jackie Love

(http://i.imgur.com/GWEoU4C.jpg)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 21, 2015, 10:44:46 PM
does he still do gigs with Christian?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Eric Aniversario on December 21, 2015, 11:58:46 PM
He has played with the Surf City All Stars this year, and also other bands.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 22, 2015, 12:34:32 AM
If you don't know why he left, how do you "know" he was laid off, or by whom? Whatever the circumstances are, they've not been made public.
Apparently he's currently playing with a band called Among The Villains.

Just in case my reply doesn't seem to make sense, be aware that Mx Patrol has edited their post, which was originally along the lines of "I wonder why Randell Kirsch was layed off [sic] by Jackie Love, and what he's been doing since"


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 07:02:01 AM
Referring back to the posts going back and forth in the Mike Meros thread about backing band member changes, it seems like more times than not they don’t leave by their own choice.

We obviously don’t know for sure what happened with Randell Kirsche. I was also plenty willing to point out in that other thread that “employee separations” happening in the backing band, often not of their own accord, is not totally unlike many if not most other workplaces.

That being said, my strong hunch based on deduction and what I have heard from others (including those who tend to be quite “pro-Mike” or whatever one wants to call it) is that Randell Kirsche did not choose to leave the touring band. I also sense “Ike” was poached from Brian’s band, both for his musical abilities and as a passive-aggressive swipe. Just my guess/opinion/hunch. This is not to heap a bunch of extra useless scorn on Mike or his touring band. But I also don’t think ANYONE involved in running the touring band over all these years has much benefit of doubt left for fans to just assume that when they snag a guy from another touring band, and then a current touring band guy exits, that the guy exiting is just choosing to “move on to other projects.”

Perhaps more than at any other time in the touring band’s history, playing in Mike’s band is an *awesome* gig for a working musician who likes singing and playing and who (of course) wants and needs to make an income. Mike may run a “lean” touring operation, but I’m sure most if not all of the guys in Mike’s band make more money on that gig than they have in any other “backing band” gig. Even if Mike pays a little less on average per show, they play a TON of shows. It’s year-round work, and Mike has cultivated a band with guys like Totten who actually LOVE the Beach Boys’ music. It isn’t just a paycheck for them. So they’re not just getting a good (deserved) paycheck, they’re doing something they love.

The fact that many of these guys leave the touring band and then often immediately start appearing in the Papa Doo Run Run/Surf City All Stars/Endless Summer Band gigs with Al and/or Dean and/or David Marks would be a strong indicator they weren’t looking for retirement or to play *different* music or something.

How many people from the backing band do we *know* left by their own choice and didn’t soon after or immediately start doing BB covers gigs? Christian Love? Matt Jardine in 1998? One might argue he may have chosen to leave, but would have stayed had Al stayed in the band. Maybe Phil Bardowell back in 2000 or whenever that was? And even he ended up playing in one or more of the off-shoot covers bands eventually. Adrian Baker literally swapped out with Randell Kirsche in 2004 in Papa Doo Run Run. Hinsche and Carter were gigging with Al within three years of leaving the touring band. Mike Meros ended up doing some gigs with Al’s band after he “left” the touring band.

Anyway, we certainly shouldn’t assume anything about Randell Kirsche. But I certainly am highly skeptical of the idea that he just gave notice that he wanted to leave, and only *then* did they seek out a replacement. My guess is Mike wanted Ike (why that was is a separate sidebar possibly imbued with all sorts of weird politics), and Randell was out. We shouldn't exaggerate the nefarious nature of such an event. But we also shouldn't just assume it was a 100% mutual, happy event either.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: drbeachboy on December 22, 2015, 08:03:35 AM
Referring back to the posts going back and forth in the Mike Meros thread about backing band member changes, it seems like more times than not they don’t leave by their own choice.

We obviously don’t know for sure what happened with Randell Kirsche. I was also plenty willing to point out in that other thread that “employee separations” happening in the backing band, often not of their own accord, is not totally unlike many if not most other workplaces.

That being said, my strong hunch based on deduction and what I have heard from others (including those who tend to be quite “pro-Mike” or whatever one wants to call it) is that Randell Kirsche did not choose to leave the touring band. I also sense “Ike” was poached from Brian’s band, both for his musical abilities and as a passive-aggressive swipe. Just my guess/opinion/hunch. This is not to heap a bunch of extra useless scorn on Mike or his touring band. But I also don’t think ANYONE involved in running the touring band over all these years has much benefit of doubt left for fans to just assume that when they snag a guy from another touring band, and then a current touring band guy exits, that the guy exiting is just choosing to “move on to other projects.”

Perhaps more than at any other time in the touring band’s history, playing in Mike’s band is an *awesome* gig for a working musician who likes singing and playing and who (of course) wants and needs to make an income. Mike may run a “lean” touring operation, but I’m sure most if not all of the guys in Mike’s band make more money on that gig than they have in any other “backing band” gig. Even if Mike pays a little less on average per show, they play a TON of shows. It’s year-round work, and Mike has cultivated a band with guys like Totten who actually LOVE the Beach Boys’ music. It isn’t just a paycheck for them. So they’re not just getting a good (deserved) paycheck, they’re doing something they love.

The fact that many of these guys leave the touring band and then often immediately start appearing in the Papa Doo Run Run/Surf City All Stars/Endless Summer Band gigs with Al and/or Dean and/or David Marks would be a strong indicator they weren’t looking for retirement or to play *different* music or something.

How many people from the backing band do we *know* left by their own choice and didn’t soon after or immediately start doing BB covers gigs? Christian Love? Matt Jardine in 1998? One might argue he may have chosen to leave, but would have stayed had Al stayed in the band. Maybe Phil Bardowell back in 2000 or whenever that was? And even he ended up playing in one or more of the off-shoot covers bands eventually. Adrian Baker literally swapped out with Randell Kirsche in 2004 in Papa Doo Run Run. Hinsche and Carter were gigging with Al within three years of leaving the touring band. Mike Meros ended up doing some gigs with Al’s band after he “left” the touring band.

Anyway, we certainly shouldn’t assume anything about Randell Kirsche. But I certainly am highly skeptical of the idea that he just gave notice that he wanted to leave, and only *then* did they seek out a replacement. My guess is Mike wanted Ike (why that was is a separate sidebar possibly imbued with all sorts of weird politics), and Randell was out. We shouldn't exaggerate the nefarious nature of such an event. But we also shouldn't just assume it was a 100% mutual, happy event either.

May I ask, why is this our business? This is Mike's business arrangement, not ours. He can hire & fire whoever he wants. As for Ike & Jeff, they didn't have to leave Brian. It's not like Mike kidnapped them and held them hostage. I assume they were looking for something different and jumped at the chance to play in the Beach Boys band. For these guys it is as much business as it is about the music.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 22, 2015, 08:16:59 AM
If one gig pays better than another why wouldn't you take it?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on December 22, 2015, 08:40:26 AM
Referring back to the posts going back and forth in the Mike Meros thread about backing band member changes, it seems like more times than not they don’t leave by their own choice.

We obviously don’t know for sure what happened with Randell Kirsche. I was also plenty willing to point out in that other thread that “employee separations” happening in the backing band, often not of their own accord, is not totally unlike many if not most other workplaces.

That being said, my strong hunch based on deduction and what I have heard from others (including those who tend to be quite “pro-Mike” or whatever one wants to call it) is that Randell Kirsche did not choose to leave the touring band. I also sense “Ike” was poached from Brian’s band, both for his musical abilities and as a passive-aggressive swipe. Just my guess/opinion/hunch. This is not to heap a bunch of extra useless scorn on Mike or his touring band. But I also don’t think ANYONE involved in running the touring band over all these years has much benefit of doubt left for fans to just assume that when they snag a guy from another touring band, and then a current touring band guy exits, that the guy exiting is just choosing to “move on to other projects.”

Perhaps more than at any other time in the touring band’s history, playing in Mike’s band is an *awesome* gig for a working musician who likes singing and playing and who (of course) wants and needs to make an income. Mike may run a “lean” touring operation, but I’m sure most if not all of the guys in Mike’s band make more money on that gig than they have in any other “backing band” gig. Even if Mike pays a little less on average per show, they play a TON of shows. It’s year-round work, and Mike has cultivated a band with guys like Totten who actually LOVE the Beach Boys’ music. It isn’t just a paycheck for them. So they’re not just getting a good (deserved) paycheck, they’re doing something they love.

The fact that many of these guys leave the touring band and then often immediately start appearing in the Papa Doo Run Run/Surf City All Stars/Endless Summer Band gigs with Al and/or Dean and/or David Marks would be a strong indicator they weren’t looking for retirement or to play *different* music or something.

How many people from the backing band do we *know* left by their own choice and didn’t soon after or immediately start doing BB covers gigs? Christian Love? Matt Jardine in 1998? One might argue he may have chosen to leave, but would have stayed had Al stayed in the band. Maybe Phil Bardowell back in 2000 or whenever that was? And even he ended up playing in one or more of the off-shoot covers bands eventually. Adrian Baker literally swapped out with Randell Kirsche in 2004 in Papa Doo Run Run. Hinsche and Carter were gigging with Al within three years of leaving the touring band. Mike Meros ended up doing some gigs with Al’s band after he “left” the touring band.

Anyway, we certainly shouldn’t assume anything about Randell Kirsche. But I certainly am highly skeptical of the idea that he just gave notice that he wanted to leave, and only *then* did they seek out a replacement. My guess is Mike wanted Ike (why that was is a separate sidebar possibly imbued with all sorts of weird politics), and Randell was out. We shouldn't exaggerate the nefarious nature of such an event. But we also shouldn't just assume it was a 100% mutual, happy event either.

It's not like Mike kidnapped them and held them hostage.

He poached 'em! :lol


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 22, 2015, 08:47:22 AM
The idea of competition in a market is Greek to many people; unsurprisingly it is similarly Greek in these here parts. Supply and demand ain't that hard, guys.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Bill30022 on December 22, 2015, 08:55:48 AM
I seem to recall that the issue with Mike Meros is that he didn't sing. Replacing him with a keyboardist who sings allowed the band to drop a slot. Didn't his departure coincide with Kowalski's (another no singer) departure? It was at that point that the backing band went from six pieces to five pieces.

Could Kirsch's departure be as simple as a way to save money - A new younger guy will usually be cheaper.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 22, 2015, 08:58:36 AM
I also think Mike Kowalski's departure had to do with the fact that he was a stalwart from the late 1960s and as a result, his once-great drumming was dulled with age. Moving John Cowsill to drums was one genius maneuver in Michael's band - it tightened up the band immensely.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 22, 2015, 09:09:27 AM
People are fond of saying "It's all about the music".  But we all know that isn't exactly it.  From what I gather Mike's choice to tour so heavily is based on his desire to make more money, so it would follow that band decisions are made to further that goal for the most part.    People are expected to play, sing, and perform well and be willing to be on the road constantly.   


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 22, 2015, 09:31:55 AM
I seem to recall that the issue with Mike Meros is that he didn't sing. Replacing him with a keyboardist who sings allowed the band to drop a slot. Didn't his departure coincide with Kowalski's (another no singer) departure? It was at that point that the backing band went from six pieces to five pieces.

Could Kirsch's departure be as simple as a way to save money - A new younger guy will usually be cheaper.


No, Meros left at the same time (or close enough) as Phil Bardowell, with the two of them being replaced by John Cowsill and Scott Totten.
You're thinking of the changes in 2007ish, when Chris Farmer and Kowalski left at around the same time, Kirsch moved to bass, Cowsill moved to drums, and Christian Love joined on rhythm guitar.

I also agree with HeyJude that what I've heard is that Randell wasn't the one who chose to leave the band -- and if that's the case then I think it was a mistake on the part of Mike or whoever made the decision (I think Eichenberger is very good, but not noticeably better than Randell). My point was only that Surf Patrol was asking why he was sacked, which is rather begging the question.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 22, 2015, 09:35:04 AM
What's funny is that he also used the "wifeandmanagers" strawman to make his implied point for us; funny and not a tiny bit hypocritical how it has received little criticism in this regard.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Marty Castillo on December 22, 2015, 09:48:53 AM
As far as I can tell, there has been nothing said public about the departure other than Mike's facebook post which thanked Randell for his time in the band and announced Eichenberger replacing him. There has been a lot of speculation in this thread with very little known facts to be added.

Many have suggested everything comes down to money. While that might be the main objective for some, it's not for everybody. It would make sense to leave Brian's band for Mike's band if we are too assume more tour dates equals higher pay. But, if someone wasn't keen to do 160+ dates per year, I could see why Brian's band would be preferable. One of my favorite comedians, Pete Holmes, often says (paraphrasing) he would do the shows for free, but they pay him to travel. Also, it's not like Ike was this huge unknown entity--I'm sure there were a few Four Freshmen fans who were sad to seem him leave for BW and then the BBs.

I don't know Randell and I don't claim to have any inside knowledge. It is entirely possible that Mike realized Ike was available and needed to open up a spot for him (I thought he was outstanding when I saw the band this past summer). It's also possible that Randell, a man in his 60s, decided that 160+ tour dates was more than he wanted to do and it was time to semi-retire. There have been a lot of folks saying "they heard" Randell didn't leave by choice, but I haven't seen anyone pointing to a credible source.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: TommyPlural on December 22, 2015, 09:52:56 AM
I have no interest in perpetuating any negativity regarding relations between any of the touring Beach Boys camps, however the Beach Boys backing band and the various musical collaborators is an area that I've always been particularly fascinated by. I'm interested in the world of touring musicians in general but the Beach Boy world is full of so many twists and turns as we all know and the way in which some touring members have at times essentially been full band members in all but name (Hinsche, Foskett, Carter, Daryl Dragon, etc) is something that, while not unique to the Beach Boys, is an interesting aspect to the Beach Boys world. Once the 90s came around and the Beach Boys essentially ceased to be a recording act and split into the different factions, the 'capital T' Touring Band changed obviously, but the threads connecting all of the various touring lineups is very interesting. I've haphazardly attempted to make "family trees" of Beach Boys band lineups and I feel like there's a story to be told and with the right nudge I'd almost like to write a book about it - interview the various members and get their stories, completely avoid the topic of "dirty laundry" regarding the principals, just profile the backgrounds of the various people that have been in and out of the live show world of the Beach Boys and tell their stories while they're still around (and preserve the legacy of those that aren't). The book "When We Get To Surf City" by Bob Greene kind of cements this idea, and I was astounded when I randomly came upon the book in a library in 2009 that someone had written a book that told the stories of Randell Kirsch, Chris Farmer, and Gary Griffin among others. "Really? Someone outside of the 500-odd Beach Boy fanatics even knows who these guys are?"

Greene's book made me like Kirsch's personality (or at least the way he's portrayed), and I remember the first time I saw him perform live in the summer of 2004 and how much more I enjoyed the touring band show with him and Baker swapped out. I remember seeing Randell walking around the fair that the Beach Boys were performing at after the show was over and I talked myself out of approaching him as I don't like to bother people just trying to do their job but by all accounts he's a kind and humble man. I hope he's doing well with whatever project he's involved with.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 22, 2015, 09:53:21 AM
On the Graduation Day Message Board, there was a flame war that erupted between factions in the Four Freshmen fan base over Brian Wilson and later Mike Love "poaching" Ike Eichenberger for their own groups. Scorched earth; dozens of members banned.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 10:07:22 AM
May I ask, why is this our business? This is Mike's business arrangement, not ours. He can hire & fire whoever he wants. As for Ike & Jeff, they didn't have to leave Brian. It's not like Mike kidnapped them and held them hostage. I assume they were looking for something different and jumped at the chance to play in the Beach Boys band. For these guys it is as much business as it is about the music.

Why is it our business? It's just discussion; the whole point of this board. The Beach Boys' entire career is one big business arrangement. Should we not discuss which labels they've been signed to either? Al being in Brian's band, that's a business arrangement too. Releasing CDs? Business arrangement.

As with everything else, Mike can do whatever he wants. It also means fans and spectators can react the way they want too. If you're the "it's all business" guy, then that's fine. But if someone thinks being the "it's all business" guy makes one look like a d**k sometimes, then we all have to live with that too.

As I've been saying, I don't think there's anything particularly nefarious about most of the backing band personnel changes. I'm sure sometimes it was deserved, sometimes needed, and sometimes people got screwed. Like any other workplace as I've been saying. I'm not prepared to chastise Mike for turnover in his own band, even if he's responsible for it. If we were going to do that, we'd indeed have to chastise Carl and Al in addition to Mike for Hinsche and Carter exiting, etc. But I'm also not going to assume it's "Tea Time at Buttercup Junction" in Mike's touring operation either.

I do think it's a bit ironic that there were a few folks that tried to contend in the aftermath of C50 that what Mike was *really* doing was looking out for the two guys were left unemployed in 2012: Christian Love and Randell Kirsche, arguing that Mike went back to his own band out of caring for those two guys. Now both guys are gone, and they may not have both exited of their own accord.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 10:20:08 AM
I seem to recall that the issue with Mike Meros is that he didn't sing. Replacing him with a keyboardist who sings allowed the band to drop a slot. Didn't his departure coincide with Kowalski's (another no singer) departure? It was at that point that the backing band went from six pieces to five pieces.

Could Kirsch's departure be as simple as a way to save money - A new younger guy will usually be cheaper.


I think the “not a singer” thing was a justification bandied about at the time concerning the exit of Mike Meros. But there were also some other grumblings online back around that time. I don’t recall all the details and don’t know if all the posts are still online. But there were folks posting info suggesting Meros got fudged in the whole ordeal.

They also could have sacked Bonhomme and kept Meros, as I don’t think Bonhomme does a ton of singing either.

My guess, and again just a guess, is that Meros’s exist was a cost-cutting measure, justified by the “he doesn’t sing” excuse. Interestingly, Meros’s last show with the touring band was televised as I recall; it was a 4th of July gig and I think they made a quick mention of it being his last show. I always got the sense his exit was not known WAY in advance, but he certainly knew by that time.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 22, 2015, 11:04:29 AM
I've spoken to three members of the touring group over the past several months at different shows and to a close friend of a many decade member about the band and the touring.   They are all tired, some feeling their age, and all feel pressured to put out their best effort on more dates than they really care to play but don't have a voice on how many shows are performed so keep going to keep their jobs.  And they all appear very road weary.  I suspect that when an individual member begins to slip a bit in attitude or performance it becomes an issue of are you with the program or not.  I don't think Mike randomly replaces or fires people, he is just in charge and will see that the band functions as he sees fit for as many shows as he is willing to do in a given year.   


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: drbeachboy on December 22, 2015, 11:16:30 AM
May I ask, why is this our business? This is Mike's business arrangement, not ours. He can hire & fire whoever he wants. As for Ike & Jeff, they didn't have to leave Brian. It's not like Mike kidnapped them and held them hostage. I assume they were looking for something different and jumped at the chance to play in the Beach Boys band. For these guys it is as much business as it is about the music.

Why is it our business? It's just discussion; the whole point of this board. The Beach Boys' entire career is one big business arrangement. Should we not discuss which labels they've been signed to either? Al being in Brian's band, that's a business arrangement too. Releasing CDs? Business arrangement.

As with everything else, Mike can do whatever he wants. It also means fans and spectators can react the way they want too. If you're the "it's all business" guy, then that's fine. But if someone thinks being the "it's all business" guy makes one look like a d**k sometimes, then we all have to live with that too.

As I've been saying, I don't think there's anything particularly nefarious about most of the backing band personnel changes. I'm sure sometimes it was deserved, sometimes needed, and sometimes people got screwed. Like any other workplace as I've been saying. I'm not prepared to chastise Mike for turnover in his own band, even if he's responsible for it. If we were going to do that, we'd indeed have to chastise Carl and Al in addition to Mike for Hinsche and Carter exiting, etc. But I'm also not going to assume it's "Tea Time at Buttercup Junction" in Mike's touring operation either.

I do think it's a bit ironic that there were a few folks that tried to contend in the aftermath of C50 that what Mike was *really* doing was looking out for the two guys were left unemployed in 2012: Christian Love and Randell Kirsche, arguing that Mike went back to his own band out of caring for those two guys. Now both guys are gone, and they may not have both exited of their own accord.
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 11:27:45 AM
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most of what is discussed here is speculation and opinion. If we avoided speculation, then it would all be "favorite songs" polls and whatnot. Nearly every "Smile" discussion ever undertaken would be null and void. Nearly every discussion on inter-band relationships would be negated.

It's all clearly labeled as speculation and guesses. Nobody is saying they know for certain what happened. Indeed, I've made sure in EVERY post related to this topic that I've clearly stated we don't know what happened. But there's enough information and interest to speculate.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: drbeachboy on December 22, 2015, 12:01:21 PM
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most of what is discussed here is speculation and opinion. If we avoided speculation, then it would all be "favorite songs" polls and whatnot. Nearly every "Smile" discussion ever undertaken would be null and void. Nearly every discussion on inter-band relationships would be negated.

It's all clearly labeled as speculation and guesses. Nobody is saying they know for certain what happened. Indeed, I've made sure in EVERY post related to this topic that I've clearly stated we don't know what happened. But there's enough information and interest to speculate.
So, if you get a speculative answer, then where does that leave us? Not knowing anymore or less than where we started. Seems futile to me and only leads to band member bashing. Especially, if they think the speculation is the actual truth.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Marty Castillo on December 22, 2015, 12:16:01 PM
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most of what is discussed here is speculation and opinion. If we avoided speculation, then it would all be "favorite songs" polls and whatnot. Nearly every "Smile" discussion ever undertaken would be null and void. Nearly every discussion on inter-band relationships would be negated.

It's all clearly labeled as speculation and guesses. Nobody is saying they know for certain what happened. Indeed, I've made sure in EVERY post related to this topic that I've clearly stated we don't know what happened. But there's enough information and interest to speculate.
So, if you get a speculative answer, then where does that leave us? Not knowing anymore or less than where we started. Seems futile to me and only leads to band member bashing. Especially, if they think the speculation is the actual truth.

I think the bigger issue is sometimes the speculation/opinion turns into conventional wisdom or fact.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Marty Castillo on December 22, 2015, 12:18:20 PM
I've spoken to three members of the touring group over the past several months at different shows and to a close friend of a many decade member about the band and the touring.   They are all tired, some feeling their age, and all feel pressured to put out their best effort on more dates than they really care to play but don't have a voice on how many shows are performed so keep going to keep their jobs.  And they all appear very road weary.  I suspect that when an individual member begins to slip a bit in attitude or performance it becomes an issue of are you with the program or not.  I don't think Mike randomly replaces or fires people, he is just in charge and will see that the band functions as he sees fit for as many shows as he is willing to do in a given year.   

This is really great insight. The current travel and performance schedule is incredibly ambitious. As a, relatively, young man, it makes be tired to just think about.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 12:27:58 PM
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most of what is discussed here is speculation and opinion. If we avoided speculation, then it would all be "favorite songs" polls and whatnot. Nearly every "Smile" discussion ever undertaken would be null and void. Nearly every discussion on inter-band relationships would be negated.

It's all clearly labeled as speculation and guesses. Nobody is saying they know for certain what happened. Indeed, I've made sure in EVERY post related to this topic that I've clearly stated we don't know what happened. But there's enough information and interest to speculate.
So, if you get a speculative answer, then where does that leave us? Not knowing anymore or less than where we started. Seems futile to me and only leads to band member bashing. Especially, if they think the speculation is the actual truth.

The point of discussion is the discussion itself, not always seeking answers, certainly not always definitive answers. Again, this is just the nature of just about every message board/online community I've seen. Some people are looking to further their knowledge, some to just share their thoughts or opinions, etc.

I don’t see any problem with posting that common sense, past patterns of band member changes, and available evidence would seem to indicate Randell Kirsche may well have not chosen to leave the touring band. Maybe others are trying to be provocative with such an idea, but I can only offer that I’m not. It’s just a common sense observation, not a definitive statement of fact.; and it’s one worth mentioning (again, just in my opinion) in the face of the suggestion that the standard of evidence  means we shouldn’t discuss anything at all that can’t be factually proven. If one thinks none of this matters, then the entire topic/thread can be skipped.

But I’m not a big fan of being absolutely incredulous about the theory/idea/opinion that Foskett and Ike leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has nothing to do with politics, and that the resulting politics may have led to someone being a casualty of said politics. If I think politics were involved, it isn’t to suggest that Mike’s a bad person. It just means politics were involved.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 12:33:40 PM
I've spoken to three members of the touring group over the past several months at different shows and to a close friend of a many decade member about the band and the touring.   They are all tired, some feeling their age, and all feel pressured to put out their best effort on more dates than they really care to play but don't have a voice on how many shows are performed so keep going to keep their jobs.  And they all appear very road weary.  I suspect that when an individual member begins to slip a bit in attitude or performance it becomes an issue of are you with the program or not.  I don't think Mike randomly replaces or fires people, he is just in charge and will see that the band functions as he sees fit for as many shows as he is willing to do in a given year.  

This is really great insight. The current travel and performance schedule is incredibly ambitious. As a, relatively, young man, it makes be tired to just think about.

Very good insights indeed. But let us also remember that just as nobody was making Foskett or Ike leave Brian's band, nobody made anyone sign up with Mike's either. With the exception of Ike, the guys in the band have been touring with this band for years. Foskett knows the grind from his 80s stint as well.

I'd certainly subscribe to the idea that eventually some folks might burn out and/or lose some steam, and maybe they don't voluntarily exit. But certainly with someone like Kirsche, I haven't heard anyone suggest he was lagging behind in concert. I think the Kirsche thing is actually a bit of an anomaly, as I'm *guessing* it had much more to do with getting Ike than wanting to discard Kirsche.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: surf patrol on December 22, 2015, 12:35:05 PM
 :3d

 



Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
It makes sense to me, generally speaking. Again, like unfortunately most workplaces. Politics, backbiting, ass kissing, etc.

Kowalski always has seemed like a nice guy, and as folks like Stebbins have pointed out, was a great drummer back in the 70s. But I certainly thought that one personnel change, musically speaking, should have been made back in the 80s.

But that's one of very few cases where a backing band member was very obviously a hindrance performance-wise.

Most of the guys that have exited have never overtly been performing badly on stage. Perhaps almost the entire '81 band might fall under that category, including most of the actual BBs themselves.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: drbeachboy on December 22, 2015, 12:45:22 PM
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most of what is discussed here is speculation and opinion. If we avoided speculation, then it would all be "favorite songs" polls and whatnot. Nearly every "Smile" discussion ever undertaken would be null and void. Nearly every discussion on inter-band relationships would be negated.

It's all clearly labeled as speculation and guesses. Nobody is saying they know for certain what happened. Indeed, I've made sure in EVERY post related to this topic that I've clearly stated we don't know what happened. But there's enough information and interest to speculate.
So, if you get a speculative answer, then where does that leave us? Not knowing anymore or less than where we started. Seems futile to me and only leads to band member bashing. Especially, if they think the speculation is the actual truth.

The point of discussion is the discussion itself, not always seeking answers, certainly not always definitive answers. Again, this is just the nature of just about every message board/online community I've seen. Some people are looking to further their knowledge, some to just share their thoughts or opinions, etc.

I don’t see any problem with posting that common sense, past patterns of band member changes, and available evidence would seem to indicate Randell Kirsche may well have not chosen to leave the touring band. Maybe others are trying to be provocative with such an idea, but I can only offer that I’m not. It’s just a common sense observation, not a definitive statement of fact.; and it’s one worth mentioning (again, just in my opinion) in the face of the suggestion that the standard of evidence  means we shouldn’t discuss anything at all that can’t be factually proven. If one thinks none of this matters, then the entire topic/thread can be skipped.

But I’m not a big fan of being absolutely incredulous about the theory/idea/opinion that Foskett and Ike leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has nothing to do with politics, and that the resulting politics may have led to someone being a casualty of said politics. If I think politics were involved, it isn’t to suggest that Mike’s a bad person. It just means politics were involved.

Send Jeff & Ike an email and ask. Don't speculate about something you have no knowledge about. Seriously, I would hope that most of us who come here do so to gain knowledge, not sit and speculate. Go back reread what you originally posted. I wouldn't have even answered if you just thought is was politics. You made it sound like Mike stole them away from Brian and that Randall was sacked for some terrible reason. We know none of that.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 12:54:26 PM
My point, if you don't know, then don't speculate. I have no problem discussing anything as long as it is factual.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most of what is discussed here is speculation and opinion. If we avoided speculation, then it would all be "favorite songs" polls and whatnot. Nearly every "Smile" discussion ever undertaken would be null and void. Nearly every discussion on inter-band relationships would be negated.

It's all clearly labeled as speculation and guesses. Nobody is saying they know for certain what happened. Indeed, I've made sure in EVERY post related to this topic that I've clearly stated we don't know what happened. But there's enough information and interest to speculate.
So, if you get a speculative answer, then where does that leave us? Not knowing anymore or less than where we started. Seems futile to me and only leads to band member bashing. Especially, if they think the speculation is the actual truth.

The point of discussion is the discussion itself, not always seeking answers, certainly not always definitive answers. Again, this is just the nature of just about every message board/online community I've seen. Some people are looking to further their knowledge, some to just share their thoughts or opinions, etc.

I don’t see any problem with posting that common sense, past patterns of band member changes, and available evidence would seem to indicate Randell Kirsche may well have not chosen to leave the touring band. Maybe others are trying to be provocative with such an idea, but I can only offer that I’m not. It’s just a common sense observation, not a definitive statement of fact.; and it’s one worth mentioning (again, just in my opinion) in the face of the suggestion that the standard of evidence  means we shouldn’t discuss anything at all that can’t be factually proven. If one thinks none of this matters, then the entire topic/thread can be skipped.

But I’m not a big fan of being absolutely incredulous about the theory/idea/opinion that Foskett and Ike leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has nothing to do with politics, and that the resulting politics may have led to someone being a casualty of said politics. If I think politics were involved, it isn’t to suggest that Mike’s a bad person. It just means politics were involved.

Send Jeff & Ike an email and ask. Don't speculate about something you have no knowledge about. Seriously, I would hope that most of us who come here do so to gain knowledge, not sit and speculate. Go back reread what you originally posted. I wouldn't have even answered if you just thought is was politics. You made it sound like Mike stole them away from Brian and that Randall was sacked for some terrible reason. We know none of that.

The speculation, not any statement of fact, was that Kirsche may have exited because Mike wanted Ike. A common event in the work force. Is that a terrible reason? I have no idea. If Kirsche didn't want to go, it was probably a bummer for him.

And no, boards aren't only for "gaining knowledge." Otherwise, we wouldn't have fantasy track listings and favorite song threads. That's about sharing opinions.

Speculation on topics we RARELY have any direct knowledge of or connection to is what most of this board is. Are we supposed to step into speculative "Smile" threads and tell people "Don't speculate! You weren't there at the sessions!", and direct them instead to e-mail Brian and ask him?

And I never suggested Mike "stole" Foskett from Brian's band. I do feel, and again just my opinion, that Foskett's *hiring* once he was out of Brian's band, as well as Ike apparently/presumably *leaving* Brian's band for Mike's band, were quite possibly motivated in part by inter-BB politics. It's nothing new, and it's just a theory/hunch/idea, etc.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 22, 2015, 01:12:37 PM
Cowsill has trouble  turning on  a keyboard  & didn't replace Meros.
I meant he replaced Meros' place in terms of being one of the two keyboardists in the backing band, not that he was necessarily playing Meros' parts.
I only saw Cowsill playing keyboard with Mike & Bruce a few times, but he seemed perfectly adequate -- although, frankly, there were too many keyboardists on stage, and too much keyboard in the arrangement, in the early 2000s.


Quote
Cowsill was bucking for Kowalski's job for years and finally MK. got sick of all the bull & didn't care anymore either, he's glad to be out too.

This actually makes sense to me. Most people in audiences don't tend to notice the drummers, and I never hear people at gigs talking about drummers, *except* when I've been to Mike & Bruce gigs. The three I went to with Kowalski on drums, people came out talking about how terrible the drumming was, and how it nearly ruined the show. The ones I've been to with Cowsill on drums, they come out talking about how great he is.

If I were a drummer as good as Cowsill, stuck playing something that wasn't my first instrument, while someone as bad as Kowalski was was on the drums, *I'd* be pushing to take over.

Which is not to say Kowalski wasn't good in the 60s and 70s. But by 2001, the first time I got a chance to see any Beach Boys lineup, he was having trouble even keeping time.

Quote
Cowsill & Totten got into the band because Adrian and Mrs. Love were not friends and his days were numbered also.

If so, we have a lot to thank Jacqui Love for, frankly. Scott and John are immensely talented musicians. Adrian Baker, along with Kowalski, was a very weak link in the post-1998 lineup of the band, and when he was replaced the band improved dramatically.

(Again, nothing against Baker as a person, or indeed as a guitarist. But his vocals on the shows I saw were frankly horrible.)

Quote
Also for $200 a gig and all the travel it's a tough way to make a living & stay married also.... the $$$ never did trickle down much despite all the $$$ Love makes.
If that's what they're paid, then it *is* a hard job for the wages, and increases my admiration for them immensely -- that's roughly what I get per day for my office job, and I can go home and see my wife every evening. I do hope they're either actually paid more than that, or believe the other benefits of the job outweigh the financial ones.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: J.G. Dev on December 22, 2015, 02:17:40 PM
Hey Jude -
 Briefly -  Most of the original / longtime touring members,  remain  freinds with Al Jardine and not the Love's. Read between the line's. The politic's behind the scene's were ass kissing.  Some  like to ass kiss and others wouldn't.   Cowsill has trouble  turning on  a keyboard  & didn't replace Meros. Cowsill was bucking for Kowalski's job for years and finally MK. got sick of all the bull & didn't care anymore either, he's glad to be out too.   Tim Bonahome took over for Mike M. because he didn't want to be sh*t-canned either but in all fairness he isn't even close to the musicain Meros was.  Tim is a good guy thou but doesn't sing either & that was impossible anyways playing all the decks of keyboards & B3  Meros played.  The sound suffer's without a B3 onstage it's the choice of many professional musicians even today for the "fat sounds". Cowsill & Totten got into the band because Adrian and Jackie were not friends and his days were numbered also. Cowsill was brought in to sing and Totten to play the guitar as Adrian needed a break from the madness & left the band to go to England for Christmas 2000... so on and so forth..
Also for $200 a gig and all the travel it's a tough way to make a living & stay married .... the $$$ never did trickle down much despite all the $$$ Love makes.



 



There is no way these guys are only making $200/show.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 22, 2015, 02:36:45 PM
Cowsill was brought in to sing...

Simply not the case. I interviewed Cowsill back in fall 2009 and asked how he "got the call":

"Flash forward to 1998. I get a call at midnight from Chris Farmer. I hadn’t spoken to Chris since I left Jan and Dean [in 1986], so naturally I assumed he wanted something. That something was to drive to the airport and get on a plane to Minneapolis. Mike Kowalski was having some inner ear problem and had to get off the plane, so I filled in for a small string of gigs on drums. While on that trip Adrian Baker asked if I could sub for him on a few dates, New Year’s being one of them. I said I would do it if I didn’t have to play any leads on guitar. So… I did a week for Adrian, and that was that. Then just about a year and some months later, Phil Bardowell asked if I could sub for him in Europe while he worked on his solo project. (I had no idea they were simultaneously hiring Scott Totten, thank God.) Again, I said I would do it if I didn’t have to play lead, and he said Adrian would do them.

So, I am practicing my ass off for a month trying to learn Phil’s guitar and vocal parts (and mind you, I’m not a genius on guitar), I get a call from Farmer about a week before we go out and he says “Are you ready”? I said as long as I’m not playing lead guitar I’m good to go. He said “Oh didn’t anybody call you? You’re playing piano.” I said “Really?” So I was in a mild panic. They send me a copy of the show with Timmy’s piano parts. I had no idea Mike Meros was leaving the band. So I’m thinking to myself, “what a daunting task to be sure”. Then “LIGHT BULB”!!!  So I called Billy Hinsche…my hero. My good friend to this day. Man, he sent me everything and even offered to meet with me and go over the parts. So I do the summer in Europe and by the end of the run, Phil has decided to not return and I was hired. TA DA!!!!!"

As for why Kowalski left... he didn't. He was "let go" because, quite simply, he wasn't up to the job any more. In 2004, when I saw them, he lost the beat halfway through the first song. There isn't a more straight 4/4 song than "Do It Again", but he screwed it up. he was, to be frank, embarrassingly poor.

$200 a show ? Get real.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 03:19:19 PM
I've always wondered by they didn't just call Bobby Figueroa (or someone else) back up in the 90s. As I've mentioned, Mike Kowalski was the one really unfortunately  glaring shortcoming in the live band going back to the 80s. I just wonder why it took until 2007 or whenever it was to switch drummers.



Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Eric Aniversario on December 22, 2015, 03:21:43 PM
Hey Jude -
 Briefly -  Most of the original / longtime touring members,  remain  freinds with Al Jardine and not the Love's. Read between the line's. The politic's behind the scene's were ass kissing.  Some  like to ass kiss and others wouldn't.   Cowsill has trouble  turning on  a keyboard  & didn't replace Meros. Cowsill was bucking for Kowalski's job for years and finally MK. got sick of all the bull & didn't care anymore either, he's glad to be out too.   Tim Bonahome took over for Mike M. because he didn't want to be sh*t-canned either but in all fairness he isn't even close to the musicain Meros was.  Tim is a good guy thou but doesn't sing either & that was impossible anyways playing all the decks of keyboards & B3  Meros played.  The sound suffer's without a B3 onstage it's the choice of many professional musicians even today for the "fat sounds". Cowsill & Totten got into the band because Adrian and Jackie were not friends and his days were numbered also. Cowsill was brought in to sing and Totten to play the guitar as Adrian needed a break from the madness & left the band to go to England for Christmas 2000... so on and so forth..
Also for $200 a gig and all the travel it's a tough way to make a living & stay married .... the $$$ never did trickle down much despite all the $$$ Love makes.



 



There is no way these guys are only making $200/show.

Agreed. That would be a disrespectful wage for such an intense, high profile job. I made more than that on my Wednesday lunch shift last week at the restaurant I work at.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: tpesky on December 22, 2015, 04:25:53 PM
The BB touring band has always been rather fluid. Even a stalwart like Eddie Carter got pushed out a little bit in the 70s when Jimmy Guercio suddenly became the bass player.  Never really heard why Hinsche and Carter left in the mid 90's. Al and Carl were still around so wasn't just Mike's decision.

Kowalski was a good drummer, I always thought Bobby Figueroa was better. In the 80s after Dennis died, both of them were in the band and then Figueroa left and Kowaski stayed. Should have been the other way around. 

Someone mentioned the mix being too keyboard heavy in the early 2000's, That was the case after 1980 really and only got worse when Foskett left and they didn't replace his guitar.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 04:51:52 PM
In the 2000's, the Stones' backing musicians were all paid between 3000-8000/gig.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 22, 2015, 04:57:39 PM
If Mike really paid the backing members $200 a night he wouldn't have a backing band. I chalk the rest of this thread up to OP having little more than an axe to grind.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Marty Castillo on December 22, 2015, 05:52:52 PM
If Mike really paid the backing members $200 a night he wouldn't have a backing band. I chalk the rest of this thread up to OP having little more than an axe to grind.

You don't say!    :lol


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 22, 2015, 06:37:34 PM
In the 2000's, the Stones' backing musicians were all paid between 3000-8000/gig.

I'm guessing the Stones had a bigger budget show with more overhead costs (probably a lot of arena shows and perhaps some stadiums?) and did far fewer than 150 to 175 gigs per year.

It makes sense Mike wouldn't pay out nearly as much as that. But yeah, I think $200 would be way too low. I would doubt Mike (or any BB related tour) could afford 8k per show either. That would have Mike paying each band member, at a conservative 150 shows, a gross $1.2 million per year.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 07:35:04 PM
In the 2000's, the Stones' backing musicians were all paid between 3000-8000/gig.

I'm guessing the Stones had a bigger budget show with more overhead costs (probably a lot of arena shows and perhaps some stadiums?) and did far fewer than 150 to 175 gigs per year.

It makes sense Mike wouldn't pay out nearly as much as that. But yeah, I think $200 would be way too low. I would doubt Mike (or any BB related tour) could afford 8k per show either. That would have Mike paying each band member, at a conservative 150 shows, a gross $1.2 million per year.
I was just throwing it out there as a benchmark. I fully agree that there are a lot of variables to consider. The stones didn't actually pay per show. It was a fixed total per person for the tour, but if calculated by show that's what it came to. I think the biggest non-member salary was about 800,000 for the tour.

Eta: mistake - 800,000 was the biggest payout for a year, not for the full tour.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: surf patrol on December 22, 2015, 08:13:51 PM
 ::)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Cam Mott on December 22, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
I seem to recall that the issue with Mike Meros is that he didn't sing. Replacing him with a keyboardist who sings allowed the band to drop a slot. Didn't his departure coincide with Kowalski's (another no singer) departure? It was at that point that the backing band went from six pieces to five pieces.

Could Kirsch's departure be as simple as a way to save money - A new younger guy will usually be cheaper.


I think the “not a singer” thing was a justification bandied about at the time concerning the exit of Mike Meros. But there were also some other grumblings online back around that time. I don’t recall all the details and don’t know if all the posts are still online. But there were folks posting info suggesting Meros got fudged in the whole ordeal.

They also could have sacked Bonhomme and kept Meros, as I don’t think Bonhomme does a ton of singing either.

My guess, and again just a guess, is that Meros’s exist was a cost-cutting measure, justified by the “he doesn’t sing” excuse. Interestingly, Meros’s last show with the touring band was televised as I recall; it was a 4th of July gig and I think they made a quick mention of it being his last show. I always got the sense his exit was not known WAY in advance, but he certainly knew by that time.


Wasn't Meros ill when he left the band?  Wasn't it announced during his last tour that he was leaving? It was in KC as I remember.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Phoenix on December 22, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Send Jeff & Ike an email and ask. Don't speculate about something you have no knowledge about.

I don't think Jeff could have been any more transparent about how he went from Brian to Mike's band, not that it was really any of our business anyway.  As a fan of his (and Brian's, obviously) I'm personally glad he went into detail as it made things MUCH easier for me to take in.  That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with any of us speculating if, as it's been said, we clearly state that as our intention, and at this point, I think the point's been made, even if that wasn't the plan going in.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: CenturyDeprived on December 22, 2015, 09:01:07 PM
Flash back -   Cowsill & Tottan were  subbing for Adrian  Xmas week 2000 - New Years 2001. Adrian left band for England & BB management wanted him "Fired" (not first time either).  Cowsill sang Darlin & Totten hardly played because he didn't know the songs.  Meros & Kowalski had never even scene Totten ever. I know I had dinner with them. I've been to more shows in a year than Doe has ever been to or ever will.   However  latter that year July 5th 2001 Cowsill took over Tim's keyboards at Atlantic City, N.J.  Meros's last show with Love was July 4th 2001. because of differance's with management. Phil Bardowell left for personel reasons and it wasn't anything to do with working on a project. That is a Cowsill fabrication.
Kowalski knew for years that Cowsill wanted his job  which he still held onto for another 7 yrs.   Both Kowalski and Bobby F. were great drummers, you don't think Carl would have had them in the band if they weren't do you ?
Also Kowalski & other former band members are well aware of your "badmouthing".
Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.


Maybe that rate ($200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance) was given to some auxiliary touring musician at one point or another, but I can't fathom that a whole band would take that rate... that's like $30,000/year at 150 shows/year. Something maybe a hardworking full time touring indie band member might make to barely scrape by.

The only way I could see that happening is if there was some other secondary significant income source that the bandmates were also deriving from M&B touring. It's almost hilarious to think about Mike being that much of a cheapskate, until the numbers are crunched, and goes from funny to basically totally impossible. Is there any way that could possibly be true? Is the touring band like Initech?

For example, I know Chuck Berry is an infamous cheapskate on the road about paying his musicians, who I've heard are often just replaced from town to town. But is any actual famous band who regularly tours (and pulls in M&B type money with predictable regularity) actually paying their long term, regular members (who stick around for many years) anywhere near that pitiful amount? I want to believe it's not true. My hunch says it's BS, but I'm curious if anyone thinks otherwise. I'd imagine the band members would be making minimum at least double that figure.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 22, 2015, 09:01:33 PM
Flash back -   Cowsill & Tottan were  subbing for Adrian  Xmas week 2000 - New Years 2001. Adrian left band for England & BB management wanted him "Fired" (not first time either).  Cowsill sang Darlin & Totten hardly played because he didn't know the songs.  Meros & Kowalski had never even scene Totten ever.

That fits with everything I've seen, yes.

Quote
Phil Bardowell left for personel reasons and it wasn't anything to do with working on a project. That is a Cowsill fabrication.

I think "fabrication" is a little harsh. It's possible that years later he was simply misremembering.

Quote
 Both Kowalski and Bobby F. were great drummers, you don't think Carl would have had them in the band if they weren't do you ?

Bobby is a very good drummer. Kowalski *was* a very good drummer in the 60s and 70s. He was frankly dreadful in the early 2000s. Recordings I've heard of 90s shows suggest he wasn't very good then either.
At a show I saw them do in 2001, Kowalski literally didn't keep a steady tempo on *any* song -- except Good Vibrations, the only song in the show that was *meant* to change tempo.
I have no idea why Carl would have kept Kowalski around. Maybe he'd lowered his standards for an easy life. Maybe Kowalski is a great human being and Carl liked having him around. Maybe a hundred different reasons. But certainly by the early 2000s he simply couldn't play.
No-one here has said a bad word about Figueroa, though. He's a good player, a good singer, and by all accounts a good person too.

Quote
Also Kowalski & other former band members are well aware of your "badmouthing".

No-one's badmouthing them. People are allowed to have bad opinions of performances. I'm not embarrassed to have my opinions known, and I suspect few others are either.
For the record, I think Hinsche, Carter, Figueroa, Foskett, and Matt Jardine are all very good to excellent, Baker and Kowalski embarrassingly poor. I haven't heard enough of Meros' playing (not having seen the band live in the 80s and 90s) to judge, but have no reason to think he was anything other than a very good keyboard player.

Quote
Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.
I actually don't have the difficulty believing this that others do, given that that's US Musicians' Union rates (assuming he's also paying into a pension pot, as he should). I can see them deciding to just pay union scale, though I do think it unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. I think it's a shame if true, though, as they're all fine musicians and I'd be very surprised if they couldn't make better money elsewhere.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 22, 2015, 10:52:25 PM
Also Kowalski & other former band members are well aware of your "badmouthing".

I'm sure they are, and since 2004... like everyone else in the BB cosmos, because I've not hidden behind a pseudonym.

Oh, and it's not badmouthing when it's true: many others have pointed out that MK's drumming late 90s/early 00s became increasingly lamentable.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Custom Machine on December 22, 2015, 11:36:04 PM

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.


Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?



Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: LostArt on December 23, 2015, 04:29:36 AM

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.


Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?



Nonsense.  The Beach Boys are getting $75,000 + per show.  Those guys are not making $250.00 per show.  Hell, I made $200.00 plus free drinks last Saturday playing at a small supper club in the middle of Wisconsin.  $250.00  :lol


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 23, 2015, 07:24:23 AM
Send Jeff & Ike an email and ask. Don't speculate about something you have no knowledge about.

I don't think Jeff could have been any more transparent about how he went from Brian to Mike's band, not that it was really any of our business anyway.  As a fan of his (and Brian's, obviously) I'm personally glad he went into detail as it made things MUCH easier for me to take in.  That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with any of us speculating if, as it's been said, we clearly state that as our intention, and at this point, I think the point's been made, even if that wasn't the plan going in.

While (and let me be very clear on this) I don't believe Jeff is in any way actually *obligated* to offer an explanation of any sort, I would disagree that the *one* interview he gave on the subject was a case where he couldn't have been more transparent. An excellent post on the subject from back at that time:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18293.msg476418.html#msg476418


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 23, 2015, 08:23:23 AM
Just had a word with a band member and they confirmed that the $200 per show claim is way too low. Going by certain aspects of surf patrol's posts, I'm pretty sure who they are, and why they post as they do.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Jim V. on December 23, 2015, 09:05:50 AM
Just had a word with a band member and they confirmed that the $200 per show claim is way too low. Going by certain aspects of surf patrol's posts, I'm pretty sure who they are, and why they post as they do.

Former member of the backing band?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 23, 2015, 09:31:46 AM
Current band member.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Robbie Mac on December 23, 2015, 09:41:33 AM
Current band member.

No, I think Jim is wondering about the identity of surf patrol.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 23, 2015, 09:43:47 AM
Oh, sorry. No.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Custom Machine on December 23, 2015, 01:18:11 PM

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.


Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?



Nonsense.  The Beach Boys are getting $75,000 + per show.  Those guys are not making $250.00 per show.  Hell, I made $200.00 plus free drinks last Saturday playing at a small supper club in the middle of Wisconsin.  $250.00  :lol


My post was intended to be humorous.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 23, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
Mike's online PR machine to the rescue.  ::)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Pretty Funky on December 23, 2015, 03:19:30 PM
Yeah....We learn much more here with wild statements and inaccurate,unsubstantiated opinion huh! ::)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 23, 2015, 06:36:35 PM
Guys I just want to put something on the record.  I know for a fact the members of the touring band as recently as 2014 are paid at least 700.00 USD per show.  They are also given a daily 50 dollar cash stipend, the only time they are not given a cash stipend is the few times a year they stay at a casino that has a hotel where they can eat and charge it to the room.  Also the band requires 50,000.00 USD to come and do a show.  If you want to book the Endless summer band (the band minus BJ) that is 25,000.00, subsequently ESB the per show is half of a BB per show.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 23, 2015, 06:37:55 PM
Thank you for that...that seems much more reasonable.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Eric Aniversario on December 23, 2015, 06:43:49 PM
Guys I just want to put something on the record.  I know for a fact the members of the touring band as recently as 2014 are paid at least 700.00 USD per show.  They are also given a daily 50 dollar cash stipend, the only time they are not given a cash stipend is the few times a year they stay at a casino that has a hotel where they can eat and charge it to the room.  Also the band requires 50,000.00 USD to come and do a show.  If you want to book the Endless summer band (the band minus BJ) that is 25,000.00, subsequently ESB the per show is half of a BB per show.

Thanks for the info! That seems a lot more reasonable. Just to clarify, though, does Mike also appear with the Endless Summer Band? Also, isn't that the name of one of Al's groups?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 23, 2015, 06:55:56 PM
$50K a show makes sense...paying the musicians and crew, renting equipment, travel expenses, that kind of stuff. $700 a show for at least a hundred shows a year is nothing to shake a stick at.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Pretty Funky on December 23, 2015, 07:03:55 PM
Also doesn't BRI take 25% off the top? There's $12.5k right away.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 23, 2015, 07:04:59 PM
Just in general in the entertainment industry generally speaking the promoters of a concert are responsible for travel/food/lodging costs of a band as most times they are with the BB.  Also the promoter is responsibility for overhead costs of FOH (front of house) equipment which for the touring band is FOH mixing and lighting boards as well as side stage IEM (in ear monitor) mixing boards, and what ever lighting is able to be used at a particular venue.  I can also tell you the band only travels with guitars and IEM's and Microphones.  Amps, drum kits, keyboards, mic stands, guitar stands, are all provided at the promoters expense.

ERIC - Mike Love's Endless summer band or the Endless summer band from my understanding is all of touring beach boys minus bruce!  


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 23, 2015, 07:22:16 PM
Pretty Funky - I'm not well versed on the terms of the agreement MELECO has with BRI, I always thought it was 25 percent on the first million of revenue and 15 percent there after.  AGD or the mods I'm sure would have better insight!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Pretty Funky on December 23, 2015, 08:10:16 PM
I recall the same.

Also old Uncle Sam takes a good slice I'm sure. :o


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Eric Aniversario on December 23, 2015, 11:58:04 PM
Just in general in the entertainment industry generally speaking the promoters of a concert are responsible for travel/food/lodging costs of a band as most times they are with the BB.  Also the promoter is responsibility for overhead costs of FOH (front of house) equipment which for the touring band is FOH mixing and lighting boards as well as side stage IEM (in ear monitor) mixing boards, and what ever lighting is able to be used at a particular venue.  I can also tell you the band only travels with guitars and IEM's and Microphones.  Amps, drum kits, keyboards, mic stands, guitar stands, are all provided at the promoters expense.

ERIC - Mike Love's Endless summer band or the Endless summer band from my understanding is all of touring beach boys minus bruce!  


Wow half price for one less person (Bruce)? That seems like a relative bargain. Probably within reach for someone who would really want them to perform for a small private event. I wonder if Bruce gets a much larger cut than the other musicians since he is an official Beach Boy. And also how much David Marks or John Stamos receive for appearing.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Pretty Funky on December 24, 2015, 12:54:25 AM
Keep in mind Eric that with Bruce onboard you are probably getting the licensed 'Beach Boys' by default and the added associated costs of the licensing agreement.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 24, 2015, 12:56:07 AM
Pretty Funky - I'm not well versed on the terms of the agreement MELECO has with BRI, I always thought it was 25 percent on the first million of revenue and 15 percent there after.  AGD or the mods I'm sure would have better insight!

20% and 17.5%... but those were the figures in 1999.

Also, now that his "facts" about the pay have been refuted by two sources, maybe Jim He... l mean, surf patrol would like to say something ?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 24, 2015, 03:32:22 AM
Guys I just want to put something on the record.  I know for a fact the members of the touring band as recently as 2014 are paid at least 700.00 USD per show.  They are also given a daily 50 dollar cash stipend, the only time they are not given a cash stipend is the few times a year they stay at a casino that has a hotel where they can eat and charge it to the room.  Also the band requires 50,000.00 USD to come and do a show.  If you want to book the Endless summer band (the band minus BJ) that is 25,000.00, subsequently ESB the per show is half of a BB per show.

Very glad to hear it. I didn't want to just assume surf patrol was lying, but I'm very glad they're getting paid reasonable rates. It's a shame we have to know this, though -- frankly it's none of our business.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: LostArt on December 24, 2015, 01:57:18 PM

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.


Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?



Nonsense.  The Beach Boys are getting $75,000 + per show.  Those guys are not making $250.00 per show.  Hell, I made $200.00 plus free drinks last Saturday playing at a small supper club in the middle of Wisconsin.  $250.00  :lol


My post was intended to be humorous.

Oh, I know.  I was responding to the OP, and yours got lumped in.  My apologies, sir.  Merry Christmas.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 24, 2015, 02:00:25 PM
Merry Christmas!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 24, 2015, 02:17:39 PM
Pretty Funky - I'm not well versed on the terms of the agreement MELECO has with BRI, I always thought it was 25 percent on the first million of revenue and 15 percent there after.  AGD or the mods I'm sure would have better insight!

20% and 17.5%... but those were the figures in 1999.

Also, now that his "facts" about the pay have been refuted by two sources, maybe Jim He... l mean, surf patrol would like to say something ?

Gross or net? Big difference! Either way, Mike gets back 25% of that as he owns a quarter of the shares of BRI.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 24, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Gross, as l recall.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Custom Machine on December 24, 2015, 07:48:58 PM

Love pays the band members $200 / show plus $50 a day food allowance.  End of Story.


Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?



Nonsense.  The Beach Boys are getting $75,000 + per show.  Those guys are not making $250.00 per show.  Hell, I made $200.00 plus free drinks last Saturday playing at a small supper club in the middle of Wisconsin.  $250.00  :lol


My post was intended to be humorous.


Oh, I know.  I was responding to the OP, and yours got lumped in.  My apologies, sir.  Merry Christmas.


No prob, just wanted to make sure no one was thinking I thought $200 per show was a great deal for the backing band. I had considered putting a
 LOL after my statement, "Well, now we know why Foskett and Ike left BW's band ... and why ML's band sees so little turnover ... what highly talented musician in their right mind could pass up $200 per show, not to mention an additional $50/day food allowance?" but decided it would come across too much like I was laughing at my own facetious joke.

Season's Greetings and Merry Christmas to you as well - and to all the Smiley Smilers!



Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: petsite on December 24, 2015, 08:34:48 PM
I liked Randall and Adrian both. But both had a more Frankie Vallie style of falsetto where Jeff and Brian sound more like Brian Wilson (as does Matt Jardine). Frank had a more nasal whine in his voice. Brian's was rich and full.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Juice Brohnston on December 24, 2015, 08:49:14 PM
Guys I just want to put something on the record.  I know for a fact the members of the touring band as recently as 2014 are paid at least 700.00 USD per show.  They are also given a daily 50 dollar cash stipend, the only time they are not given a cash stipend is the few times a year they stay at a casino that has a hotel where they can eat and charge it to the room.  Also the band requires 50,000.00 USD to come and do a show.  If you want to book the Endless summer band (the band minus BJ) that is 25,000.00, subsequently ESB the per show is half of a BB per show.
Good Intel. Now find out what Bruce makes and report back.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 24, 2015, 08:59:46 PM
Since we've been bantering about backing band incomes, I brought out the calculator and considered the number of shows and the average take on a venue.  I am guessing the band members do quite well money wise.   but there is a price to pay for being on the road for 180 shows a year all over the planet.      Lots of money is being made and after ALL expenses including original members family takes, Crew, touring costs, venue cuts, etc., the back ip performers in the touring band could be making between 250k and 500 k.   After taxes well over 125,000 each.    Not bad but I don't think I would do it for that.  


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 24, 2015, 09:59:52 PM
Care to show how you got those figures ?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 24, 2015, 10:37:09 PM
Gross, as l recall.

Then it all sounds fair enough. The band works hard, no denying that!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 24, 2015, 10:57:19 PM
I liked Randall and Adrian both. But both had a more Frankie Vallie style of falsetto where Jeff and Brian sound more like Brian Wilson (as does Matt Jardine). Frank had a more nasal whine in his voice. Brian's was rich and full.

But it's interesting that Kirsche was replaced around a year after Foskett was already there.

While Foskett doesn't have Adrian's Valli whine, I've never thought he sounded much like Brian Wilson. I think Ike and Matt are closer, especially Matt. The only person I've ever thought truly sounded very close to Brian would be some of Al's vocals from the 60s.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: LeeDempsey on December 25, 2015, 06:34:51 AM
Since we've been bantering about backing band incomes, I brought out the calculator and considered the number of shows and the average take on a venue.  I am guessing the band members do quite well money wise.   but there is a price to pay for being on the road for 180 shows a year all over the planet.      Lots of money is being made and after ALL expenses including original members family takes, Crew, touring costs, venue cuts, etc., the back ip performers in the touring band could be making between 250k and 500 k.   After taxes well over 125,000 each.    Not bad but I don't think I would do it for that.  

I too would be interested to see how this was calculated.  Even at $1,000 per show the annualized earnings for a backing musician playing 180 shows would be $180,000. I doubt very seriously that the backing musicians get a percentage take of the "gate."  And since the musicians are paid per show as opposed to being salaried, if they miss 10 shows a year due to illness, family obligations, etc., that day's pay would go to a substitute, or would not be paid out at all if the band decided to play a man short.

Lee


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 08:07:48 AM
I liked Randall and Adrian both. But both had a more Frankie Vallie style of falsetto where Jeff and Brian sound more like Brian Wilson (as does Matt Jardine). Frank had a more nasal whine in his voice. Brian's was rich and full.

But it's interesting that Kirsche was replaced around a year after Foskett was already there.

While Foskett doesn't have Adrian's Valli whine, I've never thought he sounded much like Brian Wilson. I think Ike and Matt are closer, especially Matt. The only person I've ever thought truly sounded very close to Brian would be some of Al's vocals from the 60s.

Yeah, Matt is the only one who sounds like Brian. I always thought Foskett and Kirsch actually sound very alike -- one reason I think it a shame Randell left. They blended  very well.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 25, 2015, 08:17:07 AM
The Totten/Kirsch/Bonhomme/Cowsill/Christian Love setup was probably the tightest that the Mike and Bruce band ever was.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 25, 2015, 08:19:18 AM
::)



Nice try, Jim...  but editing out your previous, incorrect  posts doesn't work when others have quoted them.  ;D


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Douchepool on December 25, 2015, 08:23:52 AM
The beautiful feel when someone with an axe to grind is utterly demolished with actual information...

Still not cool to talk about another man's wife like that, guys.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
The Totten/Kirsch/Bonhomme/Cowsill/Christian Love setup was probably the tightest that the Mike and Bruce band ever was.

I disagree -- I think Jeff is a major improvement over Christian,  who often seemed bored. The replacement of Randell by Brian Eichenberger seems a less obvious improvement though, but he's not noticeably *less* good than Randell either. So the 2014 and 2015 shows I've seen were by far the best musically.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: c-man on December 25, 2015, 08:40:38 AM
I haven't seen the band since last December: at that time, Jeff was singing the falsettos with Randell singing a midrange part. With Randell out and Ike in, what's the configuration now: does Ike do the falsettos and Jeff sing a midrange part, or do they split them, or what?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 08:42:15 AM
I think what we have learned here today is that the backing band members are *definitely* paid somewhere between minimum wage and a million dollars a year, almost certainly, and that a lot of people like to make definitive statements of fact about other people's business.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 08:46:42 AM
I haven't seen the band since last December: at that time, Jeff was singing the falsettos with Randall singing a midrange part. With Randall out and Ike in, what's the configuration now: does Ike do the falsettos and Jeff sing a midrange part, or do they split them, or what?

When I saw them in May/June, *just* after "Ike" had started, he was mostly singing the same parts that Randell was singing in 2014 (and that Christian sang before that), but took over Jeff's part in Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring. He also wasn't singing on every song -- presumably because he hadn't learned them all yet.
But also, on the second of the two shows I saw, I *think* Jeff was having some voice trouble (he sounded a little hoarse early on, and Cowsill took back the lead on Darlin' that night), and "Ike" took over some of the falsetto parts (though Jeff still sang the major falsetto leads).


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 25, 2015, 10:18:23 AM
I really really feel like Scotty T has done an awesome awesome job bring this band back into form after the 2007 personnel changes.  But in just preferences I agree with Historical Pistol Whip on the Kirsch/Love/Cowsill/Bonhomme/Totten configuration was my favorite.  Christian Love had some great vocal capabilities that never really got to shine through though, at points he had some tonality that sounded freakishly like Carl.  I can remember hearing him sing God Only Knows one night in a private setting and i was just floored with how remarkable it was. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Qe0dZPJKo


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: mikeddonn on December 25, 2015, 01:33:26 PM
I really really feel like Scotty T has done an awesome awesome job bring this band back into form after the 2007 personnel changes.  But in just preferences I agree with Historical Pistol Whip on the Kirsch/Love/Cowsill/Bonhomme/Totten configuration was my favorite.  Christian Love had some great vocal capabilities that never really got to shine through though, at points he had some tonality that sounded freakishly like Carl.  I can remember hearing him sing God Only Knows one night in a private setting and i was just floored with how remarkable it was. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Qe0dZPJKo

I just noticed watching the video how Christian's hand doesn't move on the guitar.  He 'plays' the same chord for the whole song.  His voice is good but the closest he's sounded to Carl was on the 'Brian's Back' remake. I agree that he looked 'bored' on stage.  Maybe his way was just to blend in, a bit more introverted than his Dad.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 03:02:35 PM
I really really feel like Scotty T has done an awesome awesome job bring this band back into form after the 2007 personnel changes.  But in just preferences I agree with Historical Pistol Whip on the Kirsch/Love/Cowsill/Bonhomme/Totten configuration was my favorite.  Christian Love had some great vocal capabilities that never really got to shine through though, at points he had some tonality that sounded freakishly like Carl.  I can remember hearing him sing God Only Knows one night in a private setting and i was just floored with how remarkable it was. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Qe0dZPJKo

Christian, when he was on form, could sound great. But there were times when he didn't seem like his heart was in it, which never seems the case with Jeff.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Jim V. on December 25, 2015, 03:04:46 PM
::)



Nice try, Jim...  but editing out your previous, incorrect  posts doesn't work when others have quoted them.  ;D

Jim who? Not me!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 25, 2015, 03:17:58 PM
No, no, no... not you. Jim Hennessey aka surf patrol.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: gfac22 on December 25, 2015, 03:52:19 PM
The Totten/Kirsch/Bonhomme/Cowsill/Christian Love setup was probably the tightest that the Mike and Bruce band ever was.

I disagree -- I think Jeff is a major improvement over Christian,  who often seemed bored. The replacement of Randell by Brian Eichenberger seems a less obvious improvement though, but he's not noticeably *less* good than Randell either. So the 2014 and 2015 shows I've seen were by far the best musically.

I have to say that I agree with this 100%.  I think the Kirsch/Christian lineup is very close, and I always greatly enjoyed those shows, but having Jeff back along with Ike just adds something extra for me.  The show I saw this past summer was easily my favorite Mike & Bruce show that I've ever seen, both performance and song selection-wise.  Honestly, it probably ties with the one C50 show that I saw for my favorite Beach Boys-related concert ever.  Incredible.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 25, 2015, 04:05:07 PM
@ Mikeddon I did some research on youtube and from what I can tell during the summer 2015 tours Foskett does not have a guitar on him during GOK!  My deduction is since Scott took over as musical director they do not use a rhythm guitar on GOK in the live performance.  To be honest I don't even know if GOK was originally recorded with any type or rhythm guitar!  Would love to find out if it was!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 25, 2015, 04:10:16 PM
I really really feel like Scotty T has done an awesome awesome job bring this band back into form after the 2007 personnel changes.  But in just preferences I agree with Historical Pistol Whip on the Kirsch/Love/Cowsill/Bonhomme/Totten configuration was my favorite.  Christian Love had some great vocal capabilities that never really got to shine through though, at points he had some tonality that sounded freakishly like Carl.  I can remember hearing him sing God Only Knows one night in a private setting and i was just floored with how remarkable it was. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Qe0dZPJKo

Christian, when he was on form, could sound great. But there were times when he didn't seem like his heart was in it, which never seems the case with Jeff.

I think that is a fair assessment, but off stage he is genuinely just a great guy very mellow and super nice!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: mikeddonn on December 25, 2015, 05:01:45 PM
@ Mikeddon I did some research on youtube and from what I can tell during the summer 2015 tours Foskett does not have a guitar on him during GOK!  My deduction is since Scott took over as musical director they do not use a rhythm guitar on GOK in the live performance.  To be honest I don't even know if GOK was originally recorded with any type or rhythm guitar!  Would love to find out if it was!

Thanks for finding that out.  ;D That could be the reason then.  Outside of Carl singing GOK Christian was the next best.  I agree, they should have utilised him more when he was with the group.

I'm also enjoying reading your informative posts.  ;D


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 05:46:01 PM
I really really feel like Scotty T has done an awesome awesome job bring this band back into form after the 2007 personnel changes.  But in just preferences I agree with Historical Pistol Whip on the Kirsch/Love/Cowsill/Bonhomme/Totten configuration was my favorite.  Christian Love had some great vocal capabilities that never really got to shine through though, at points he had some tonality that sounded freakishly like Carl.  I can remember hearing him sing God Only Knows one night in a private setting and i was just floored with how remarkable it was. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Qe0dZPJKo

Christian, when he was on form, could sound great. But there were times when he didn't seem like his heart was in it, which never seems the case with Jeff.

I think that is a fair assessment, but off stage he is genuinely just a great guy very mellow and super nice!


Yeah. I only met him once, very briefly, but I've never heard a bad word about him as a person. And I wasn't meaning to be too critical of him as a performer either -- he always sang well. I think Jeff is *better*, but I enjoyed every show I saw Christian play.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 25, 2015, 07:47:41 PM
Quote
Phil Bardowell left for personel reasons and it wasn't anything to do with working on a project. That is a Cowsill fabrication.

I think "fabrication" is a little harsh. It's possible that years later he was simply misremembering.

And actually, I now think it's *more* than a little harsh, and that surf patrol owes Cowsill a massive apology.
What Cowsill said: "Phil Bardowell asked if I could sub for him in Europe while he worked on his solo project."
What Bardowell says at http://www.philipbardowell.com/bio : "Philip continued in his role as lead guitarist and vocalist for the Beach Boys until 2001 when he left the band to write and record his own music and pursue other endeavors. Philip's first solo album, "In A Perfect World…" was released later that year and was met with success and great reviews"

Unless Bardowell has started putting other people's "fabrications" about his life in his official website bio, Cowsill wasn't even misremembering.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 25, 2015, 10:34:24 PM
Seems the fabrications were in Hennessey's posts.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: c-man on December 25, 2015, 10:58:23 PM
@ Mikeddon I did some research on youtube and from what I can tell during the summer 2015 tours Foskett does not have a guitar on him during GOK!  My deduction is since Scott took over as musical director they do not use a rhythm guitar on GOK in the live performance.  To be honest I don't even know if GOK was originally recorded with any type or rhythm guitar!  Would love to find out if it was!

Thanks for finding that out.  ;D That could be the reason then.  Outside of Carl singing GOK Christian was the next best.  I agree, they should have utilised him more when he was with the group.

I'm also enjoying reading your informative posts.  ;D

(a) Scott took over as Musical Director in late 2007  - in the seven times I saw them in 2009, and the one time each I saw them in 2011 and 2013, both Scott and Christian played guitar on GOK EDIT: each of those times, Bruce sang the lead - it could be that Christian wasn't actually strumming his guitar in the above-mentioned video b/c he was concentrating on singing lead
(b) When I saw them in December 2014, Jeff did not play guitar on GOK (EDIT: he only sang, along with the rest of them, in support of Carl's recorded lead)
(c) There is indeed a rhythm guitar on the studio version of GOK - which I've become convinced is played by Carol Kaye - EDIT: it's a 12-string electric, heard clearly at one point between takes on the tracking session tape - the jazzy nature of this between-take doodling is what, in part, convinced me that it's Carol and not Carl - Carl's between-take doodling typically consisted of Memphis-style licks or Beatles riffs, not the jazzy runs heard here


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Marty Castillo on December 26, 2015, 06:31:01 AM
Seems the fabrications were in Hennessey's posts.

Who is this guy and why has he edited all his old posts?

He went from honoring Meros to shitting on anyone associated with the touring band post-Meros. Classy! Great way to honor your "friend".


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 26, 2015, 07:02:13 AM
Seems the fabrications were in Hennessey's posts.

Who is this guy and why has he edited all his old posts?

He went from honoring Meros to shitting on anyone associated with the touring band post-Meros. Classy! Great way to honor your "friend".

He's a fan who's friendly with various former backing band members, and holds a grudge, either (charitably and to give him the benefit of doubt) because his friends lost their jobs (and despite me thinking some of those friends were not competent, there's an admirable loyalty there) or (uncharitably, but what some other people who know him have been saying about him) because he used to get backstage passes etc and no longer does since his friends left the backing band.
He uses various names to post abuse, usually directed at Jacqueline Love, who he blames for his friends losing their jobs, and to "defend" people against accusations, often imaginary. (His favourite technique, one he's been using at least since he commented on a blog post of mine in 2008, is to imply that any criticism of Mike Kowalski or Adrian Baker is really a criticism of Carl Wilson, and then to "defend" Carl against the entirely imaginary attack).


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 26, 2015, 07:36:27 AM
Australian.

He edited out the previous posts because his lies about the backing band being paid just $200 a show and Phil not leaving to pursue other projects were shown to be just that. End of story...  ;D


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Marty Castillo on December 26, 2015, 11:48:50 AM
^ and ^^ Thanks to both of you for the replies. Bad form editing/changing posts because your wrong. Best to own up to it.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 26, 2015, 12:18:04 PM
This thread has been really educational for someone with little knowledge of the touring band. Thanks.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 26, 2015, 12:22:50 PM
Seems the fabrications were in Hennessey's posts.

Who is this guy and why has he edited all his old posts?

He went from honoring Meros to shitting on anyone associated with the touring band post-Meros. Classy! Great way to honor your "friend".

He's a fan who's friendly with various former backing band members, and holds a grudge, either (charitably and to give him the benefit of doubt) because his friends lost their jobs (and despite me thinking some of those friends were not competent, there's an admirable loyalty there) or (uncharitably, but what some other people who know him have been saying about him) because he used to get backstage passes etc and no longer does since his friends left the backing band.
He uses various names to post abuse, usually directed at Jacqueline Love, who he blames for his friends losing their jobs, and to "defend" people against accusations, often imaginary. (His favourite technique, one he's been using at least since he commented on a blog post of mine in 2008, is to imply that any criticism of Mike Kowalski or Adrian Baker is really a criticism of Carl Wilson, and then to "defend" Carl against the entirely imaginary attack).
Does Jacqueline Love (no disrespect intended if that's not the last name she uses) have an official position within the Beach Boys organization or is her only official connection her marriage to Mike Love?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 26, 2015, 12:24:56 PM
Care to show how you got those figures ?

Just a rough guesstimate Andrew......after someone suggested 200 per show.    why would anyone do that job for less than 100,000 us per year?    I work for a school system  where many administrators make that and they get to go home each nite and have weekends off.   Look at what the touring band takes in doing the number of shows they do in a year.   So I picked up my calculator and did a guesstimate just out of curiosity:)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Robbie Mac on December 26, 2015, 12:26:49 PM
Care to show how you got those figures ?

Just a rough guesstimate Andrew......after someone suggested 200 per show.    why would anyone do that job for less than 100,000 us per year?    I work for a school system  where many administrators make that and they get to go home each nite and have weekends off.   Look at what the touring band takes in doing the number of shows they do in a year.   So I picked up my calculator and did a guesstimate just out of curiosity:)

The 200 figure has been debunked.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 26, 2015, 01:17:20 PM
Care to show how you got those figures ?

Just a rough guesstimate Andrew......after someone suggested 200 per show.    why would anyone do that job for less than 100,000 us per year?    I work for a school system  where many administrators make that and they get to go home each nite and have weekends off.   Look at what the touring band takes in doing the number of shows they do in a year.   So I picked up my calculator and did a guesstimate just out of curiosity:)

Your math skills could use some polishing. $200 x 180 shows = $36,000, and that's gross. Where the hell you got between a quarter and half a million bucks from those figures is a complete mystery. Even using the more accurate figure of $700 only yields a gross of $126,000.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 26, 2015, 01:19:09 PM
quite a thread....


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 26, 2015, 01:54:50 PM
Seems the fabrications were in Hennessey's posts.

Who is this guy and why has he edited all his old posts?

He went from honoring Meros to shitting on anyone associated with the touring band post-Meros. Classy! Great way to honor your "friend".

He's a fan who's friendly with various former backing band members, and holds a grudge, either (charitably and to give him the benefit of doubt) because his friends lost their jobs (and despite me thinking some of those friends were not competent, there's an admirable loyalty there) or (uncharitably, but what some other people who know him have been saying about him) because he used to get backstage passes etc and no longer does since his friends left the backing band.
He uses various names to post abuse, usually directed at Jacqueline Love, who he blames for his friends losing their jobs, and to "defend" people against accusations, often imaginary. (His favourite technique, one he's been using at least since he commented on a blog post of mine in 2008, is to imply that any criticism of Mike Kowalski or Adrian Baker is really a criticism of Carl Wilson, and then to "defend" Carl against the entirely imaginary attack).
Does Jacqueline Love (no disrespect intended if that's not the last name she uses) have an official position within the Beach Boys organization or is her only official connection her marriage to Mike Love?

It is the surname she uses. I don't think she has an official role within BRI (the Beach Boys' own company), although she did apparently have a role as stylist or something during the reunion tour. I think she does, however, have an official role in MELECO (Mike Love's company which runs the touring operation).

It is, however, customary for people on this board to blame Mike and Brian's wives for any perceived problems with their careers, rather than assuming that Mike and Brian are grown adults who can run their own lives. Personally, since Mike's band have gone from being an embarrassment when I first became a fan, to being one of the best live acts out there, while since Brian married Melinda he's released several truly great albums, put together the best group of musicians in the world today, and done some of the best live shows I've ever seen, I think that if Jacqueline and Melinda *have* been pulling their husbands' strings, they both deserve enormous credit rather than opprobrium.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 26, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
He's a fan who's friendly with various former backing band members, and holds a grudge, either (charitably and to give him the benefit of doubt) because his friends lost their jobs (and despite me thinking some of those friends were not competent, there's an admirable loyalty there) or (uncharitably, but what some other people who know him have been saying about him) because he used to get backstage passes etc and no longer does since his friends left the backing band.
He uses various names to post abuse, usually directed at Jacqueline Love, who he blames for his friends losing their jobs, and to "defend" people against accusations, often imaginary. (His favourite technique, one he's been using at least since he commented on a blog post of mine in 2008, is to imply that any criticism of Mike Kowalski or Adrian Baker is really a criticism of Carl Wilson, and then to "defend" Carl against the entirely imaginary attack).

Does Jacqueline Love (no disrespect intended if that's not the last name she uses) have an official position within the Beach Boys organization or is her only official connection her marriage to Mike Love?

It is the surname she uses. I don't think she has an official role within BRI (the Beach Boys' own company), although she did apparently have a role as stylist or something during the reunion tour. I think she does, however, have an official role in MELECO (Mike Love's company which runs the touring operation).

It is, however, customary for people on this board to blame Mike and Brian's wives for any perceived problems with their careers, rather than assuming that Mike and Brian are grown adults who can run their own lives. Personally, since Mike's band have gone from being an embarrassment when I first became a fan, to being one of the best live acts out there, while since Brian married Melinda he's released several truly great albums, put together the best group of musicians in the world today, and done some of the best live shows I've ever seen, I think that if Jacqueline and Melinda *have* been pulling their husbands' strings, they both deserve enormous credit rather than opprobrium.
It's the Yoko thing and it's inane. All the people around them have influence on their decisions; hopefully they respect their wives and their wives have influence on their decisions; but in the end, their decisions are their own. Even if their decisions are to do exactly as their wives say, it's still their decision.
Jacqueline Love would only be responsible if she was in a management position that would allow her to hire and fire band members.
And I agree that both seem to be doing well so both seem to be making pretty good decisions.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 26, 2015, 02:10:43 PM
It's the Yoko thing and it's inane. All the people around them have influence on their decisions; hopefully they respect their wives and their wives have influence on their decisions; but in the end, their decisions are their own. Even if their decisions are to do exactly as their wives say, it's still their decision.
Jacqueline Love would only be responsible if she was in a management position that would allow her to hire and fire band members.
And I agree that both seem to be doing well so both seem to be making pretty good decisions.

Quite. Sadly, it happens with almost every male musician -- their wives get the blame for anything the fans don't like. I've seen it happen in the Monkees and Zappa fandoms too.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 26, 2015, 02:33:01 PM
Care to show how you got those figures ?

Just a rough guesstimate Andrew......after someone suggested 200 per show.    why would anyone do that job for less than 100,000 us per year?    I work for a school system  where many administrators make that and they get to go home each nite and have weekends off.   Look at what the touring band takes in doing the number of shows they do in a year.   So I picked up my calculator and did a guesstimate just out of curiosity:)

Your math skills could use some polishing. $200 x 180 shows = $36,000, and that's gross. Where the hell you got between a quarter and half a million bucks from those figures is a complete mystery. Even using the more accurate figure of $700 only yields a gross of $126,000.
.                 

never mind, my point was that I thought it must be more like 2000 rather than 200, which I knew was ridiculous.   Just playing with a calculator ,  Andrew, what would you estimate the net for Mike and the touring band after paying all costs and taxes and the cut payed to the BB organization?   FYI, I simply guessed average venue of 3000, average ticket 50 dollars and 180 shows.    Accurate or not is a place to start a guesstimate.    Just for fun, what would you guess?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 26, 2015, 02:56:59 PM

never mind, my point was that I thought it must be more like 2000 rather than 200, which I knew was ridiculous.   Just playing with a calculator ,  Andrew, what would you estimate the net for Mike and the touring band after paying all costs and taxes and the cut payed to the BB organization?   FYI, I simply guessed average venue of 3000, average ticket 50 dollars and 180 shows.    Accurate or not is a place to start a guesstimate.    Just for fun, what would you guess?


The problem is that you're assuming there's a "net for Mike and the touring band" that's split between the band members. The backing band members are (as I understand it) paid a set rate per show, not a percentage of the takings.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Theydon Bois on December 26, 2015, 03:38:10 PM
It's the Yoko thing and it's inane. All the people around them have influence on their decisions; hopefully they respect their wives and their wives have influence on their decisions; but in the end, their decisions are their own. Even if their decisions are to do exactly as their wives say, it's still their decision.
Jacqueline Love would only be responsible if she was in a management position that would allow her to hire and fire band members.
And I agree that both seem to be doing well so both seem to be making pretty good decisions.

Quite. Sadly, it happens with almost every male musician -- their wives get the blame for anything the fans don't like. I've seen it happen in the Monkees and Zappa fandoms too.

Oh God, it's completely toxic in Zappa world, you're quite right.  And for whatever my anecdotal evidence is worth, I met Gail (may she rest in peace) and she was absolutely charming.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on December 26, 2015, 03:57:27 PM
Nice to see Mike's online PR managers to the rescue. ::)

They're so true to form. And one of 'em complains loudly about sardonic behavior here ::). Fairly shallow, huh?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Cam Mott on December 26, 2015, 04:38:42 PM
It is, however, customary for people on this board to blame Mike and Brian's wives for any perceived problems with their careers, rather than assuming that Mike and Brian are grown adults who can run their own lives. Personally, since Mike's band have gone from being an embarrassment when I first became a fan, to being one of the best live acts out there, while since Brian married Melinda he's released several truly great albums, put together the best group of musicians in the world today, and done some of the best live shows I've ever seen, I think that if Jacqueline and Melinda *have* been pulling their husbands' strings, they both deserve enormous credit rather than opprobrium.

+1


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Shady on December 26, 2015, 05:40:30 PM
It's unfair to blame the bands wives for anything, I doubt they had a final say in matters.

At the same time, going from what we've read over the years, it's possible they have been negative influences, which is fair game to point out IMO


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 26, 2015, 06:13:44 PM
It's unfair to blame the bands wives for anything, I doubt they had a final say in matters.

At the same time, going from what we've read over the years, it's possible they have been negative influences, which is fair game to point out IMO

Absolutely. It's entirely reasonable to assume that they've had some kind of influence. I think I've read interviews with band members recently which have said in so many words that some members' wives not getting on was part of the reason for the problems between the two camps (though which, if any, of the wives is at fault there I don't think we know). But if Jacqueline Love is responsible for Adrian Baker and Mike Kowalski being replaced, as surf patrol has been saying, or if Melinda Wilson was the one who pushed Brian to finally complete Smile, then we owe them a great deal.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 26, 2015, 08:17:32 PM
It's unfair to blame the bands wives for anything, I doubt they had a final say in matters.

At the same time, going from what we've read over the years, it's possible they have been negative influences, which is fair game to point out IMO
I think that's a reasonable take.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: donald on December 26, 2015, 11:18:10 PM

never mind, my point was that I thought it must be more like 2000 rather than 200, which I knew was ridiculous.   Just playing with a calculator ,  Andrew, what would you estimate the net for Mike and the touring band after paying all costs and taxes and the cut payed to the BB organization?   FYI, I simply guessed average venue of 3000, average ticket 50 dollars and 180 shows.    Accurate or not is a place to start a guesstimate.    Just for fun, what would you guess?


The problem is that you're assuming there's a "net for Mike and the touring band" that's split between the band members. The backing band members are (as I understand it) paid a set rate per show, not a percentage of the takings.

In that case, it comes down to what the road band is willing to settle for....     In that case, I wonder how that figure is arrived at and what that figure, approximately is.......700 per show seems awfully low


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Shark on December 27, 2015, 06:31:58 AM
Bruce, himself, has told me stories of issues between Jacqueline and Melinda (related to C50).  Both wives I think do have considerable influence on their husbands (as many wives do). In the end, they are both grown men and can make their own decisions though. Just my opinion,  but I think the wives are one of the big reasons why Brian and Mike don't work together today.  Not the only reason, for sure, but a big one.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Autotune on December 27, 2015, 07:45:41 AM
Bruce, himself, has told me stories of issues between Jacqueline and Melinda (related to C50).  Both wives I think do have considerable influence on their husbands (as many wives do). In the end, they are both grown men and can make their own decisions though. Just my opinion,  but I think the wives are one of the big reasons why Brian and Mike don't work together today.  Not the only reason, for sure, but a big one.

I bet one silver dollar that a big issue in the reunion break-up had to do with disagreement about Brian's onstage outfit. Not the only issue, but among those that prompted the "no more touring for the Wilsons" early email. Not to mention Brian's back problems.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Smilin Ed H on December 27, 2015, 08:27:02 AM
Bruce, himself, has told me stories of issues between Jacqueline and Melinda (related to C50).  Both wives I think do have considerable influence on their husbands (as many wives do). In the end, they are both grown men and can make their own decisions though. Just my opinion,  but I think the wives are one of the big reasons why Brian and Mike don't work together today.  Not the only reason, for sure, but a big one.

I bet one silver dollar that a big issue in the reunion break-up had to do with disagreement about Brian's onstage outfit. Not the only issue, but among those that prompted the "no more touring for the Wilsons" early email. Not to mention Brian's back problems.

Jacqeline Love wanted Brian to tuck in his shirt. Brian said, "f*** it, Jacqui," and the rest is, as they say, history.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: SMiLE Brian on December 27, 2015, 08:29:48 AM
It's never Mike's fault.  ::)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Autotune on December 27, 2015, 08:38:26 AM
It's never Mike's fault. The online PR managing campaign for Mike is taking over. ::)

Frankly, there was no malice in my friendly speculation. I thought you were done with permanently bringing up this penis-length contest. 


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 27, 2015, 09:02:11 AM
*deleted


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Wirestone on December 27, 2015, 10:10:05 AM
There are some jobs in which simply being able to do the job is part of the pay. Professional musician is one of those jobs. I think I can safely say that no one in Mike or Brian's backing band is getting rich from the gig. Mike tours more, though, so at least his guys are able to make a full-time living from it. That's seldom / never been the case with Brian's band.

The simple fact is, as much as we love the band members, both Mike and Brian could fire all their guys and hire competent replacements within a week or so. In other words, supply far outstrips demand. Pay follows accordingly.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Smilin Ed H on December 27, 2015, 12:31:39 PM
I find it had to believe that someone thought he could come on here and outright lie in an attempt to discredit The Lovester. That goes way beyond the usual tit for tat opinionated nonsense that we usually see.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: lastofmykind on December 27, 2015, 12:32:23 PM
There are some jobs in which simply being able to do the job is part of the pay. Professional musician is one of those jobs. I think I can safely say that no one in Mike or Brian's backing band is getting rich from the gig. Mike tours more, though, so at least his guys are able to make a full-time living from it. That's seldom / never been the case with Brian's band.

The simple fact is, as much as we love the band members, both Mike and Brian could fire all their guys and hire competent replacements within a week or so. In other words, supply far outstrips demand. Pay follows accordingly.

I don't think you could necessarily say that wirestone, in this hypothetical scenario both bands would suffer immensely if all backing band members were just replaced.  The touring BB all have quality top of the line professional musicians many with college degrees and prior gigs that only top professional musicians would be able to pull off. Need I say anything about the quality of the performance of Brian's band?  Both bands in my opinion are the best of the best as far as quality of musicianship and vocal capability.  Both have somewhat different approaches but dammit they are both awesome bands with awesome musicians and vocalists. 


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 27, 2015, 12:37:09 PM
I find it had to believe that someone thought he could come on here and outright lie in an attempt to discredit The Lovester. That goes way beyond the usual tit for tat opinionated nonsense that we usually see.

It's Jimbo's MO. Chose the wrong forum this time.  ;D


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 27, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
There are some jobs in which simply being able to do the job is part of the pay. Professional musician is one of those jobs. I think I can safely say that no one in Mike or Brian's backing band is getting rich from the gig. Mike tours more, though, so at least his guys are able to make a full-time living from it. That's seldom / never been the case with Brian's band.

The simple fact is, as much as we love the band members, both Mike and Brian could fire all their guys and hire competent replacements within a week or so. In other words, supply far outstrips demand. Pay follows accordingly.
As with all the arts, there's a lot of low to medium quality supply but very limited high quality. Thus the next-to-nothing pay for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists but those who have usually are paid very well.

Eta:before it becomes a tangent - let me say that I realize "quality" in the arts is mostly subjective and in this case I mean quality as judged by the broad marketplace, which often differs tremendously from quality as judged by connoisseurs, those interested in the avant garde, etc.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: adamghost on December 27, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
There are some jobs in which simply being able to do the job is part of the pay. Professional musician is one of those jobs. I think I can safely say that no one in Mike or Brian's backing band is getting rich from the gig. Mike tours more, though, so at least his guys are able to make a full-time living from it. That's seldom / never been the case with Brian's band.

The simple fact is, as much as we love the band members, both Mike and Brian could fire all their guys and hire competent replacements within a week or so. In other words, supply far outstrips demand. Pay follows accordingly.
As with all the arts, there's a lot of low to medium quality supply but very limited high quality. Thus the next-to-nothing pay for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists but those who have usually are paid very well.

Eta:before it becomes a tangent - let me say that I realize "quality" in the arts is mostly subjective and in this case I mean quality as judged by the broad marketplace, which often differs tremendously from quality as judged by connoisseurs, those interested in the avant garde, etc.

Mmm...get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that.  A lot of very good musicians can't work, and the lack of work has in turn greatly reduced the amount of good musicians, and lessened the quality overall, because fewer people are able to devote themselves to it as a profession.  It's not a kind world to specialist musicians now, unfortunately, and really great players who don't just jam but can play with taste and subtlety are harder and harder to find as those skills are valued less and less.  So I'd argue the "high quality" musicians are really struggling for the most part, and there are fewer of them overall.  

It would be harder still to get good players to fill in for Beach Boys shows, agreed.  It's a fairly specialized talent pool...but those folks are definitely out there.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: LeeDempsey on December 27, 2015, 02:10:57 PM

never mind, my point was that I thought it must be more like 2000 rather than 200, which I knew was ridiculous.   Just playing with a calculator ,  Andrew, what would you estimate the net for Mike and the touring band after paying all costs and taxes and the cut payed to the BB organization?   FYI, I simply guessed average venue of 3000, average ticket 50 dollars and 180 shows.    Accurate or not is a place to start a guesstimate.    Just for fun, what would you guess?


The problem is that you're assuming there's a "net for Mike and the touring band" that's split between the band members. The backing band members are (as I understand it) paid a set rate per show, not a percentage of the takings.

In that case, it comes down to what the road band is willing to settle for....     In that case, I wonder how that figure is arrived at and what that figure, approximately is.......700 per show seems awfully low

Looked at another way it equates to $233/hour for a 2-hour show plus an hour of setup and sound check, or $88/hour if extrapolated to an 8-hour day.  For comparison, an experienced music instructor might charge $50-$75 for a one-hour piano or guitar lesson, and you would have to book over 1,440 lessons ( 180 X 8 ) annually to make the equivalent in a year.

Lee


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Pretty Funky on December 27, 2015, 03:06:28 PM
Although Surf Patrol's numbers have been discredited, could the $200 number have been the rate back when he had contacts in the band? When M&B were first starting out around 1998 I'm sure there would have been some lean years before the act got established. Those musicians being paid 'Beach Boys' numbers prior possibly had to take a cut or move on.

Just wondering.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Debbie KL on December 27, 2015, 03:25:05 PM
Yes - it's all how we look at it.  Schlepping across the world when there's family at home has to get old after awhile...REALLY OLD.  And I love travel.

Then again, I think I remember being beaten to a pulp here last Spring (I think) for suggesting that when musicians who have worked for more than a year on a new release, we shouldn't download it for free without knowing that we are stealing.  Is the relationship of musicians' struggling and this mentality really lost on some people here?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 27, 2015, 03:31:31 PM
As with all the arts, there's a lot of low to medium quality supply but very limited high quality. Thus the next-to-nothing pay for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists but those who have usually are paid very well.

Eta:before it becomes a tangent - let me say that I realize "quality" in the arts is mostly subjective and in this case I mean quality as judged by the broad marketplace, which often differs tremendously from quality as judged by connoisseurs, those interested in the avant garde, etc.

Mmm...get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that.  A lot of very good musicians can't work, and the lack of work has in turn greatly reduced the amount of good musicians, and lessened the quality overall, because fewer people are able to devote themselves to it as a profession.  It's not a kind world to specialist musicians now, unfortunately, and really great players who don't just jam but can play with taste and subtlety are harder and harder to find as those skills are valued less and less.  So I'd argue the "high quality" musicians are really struggling for the most part, and there are fewer of them overall.  

It would be harder still to get good players to fill in for Beach Boys shows, agreed.  It's a fairly specialized talent pool...but those folks are definitely out there.
I agree I way oversimplified. I specified in my second sentence "for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists..." because I realize there are a lot of skilled and talented musicians who never get established as such in the market because the pay starting out is so low and spotty, a lot of people end up doing other things. Most of my art school friends work at entirely unrelated jobs and the rest at professional graphic design-type things. Some seemed to have plenty of talent, but things didn't pan out and they needed to make a living.
The word "quality" is really not the word I should have used but I'm not sure what the word I should have used is - I sort of danced around this in my edit note.
Point is, I take your points fully. Lots of artists who would've done great work had the pieces fallen into place fell by the wayside because it's very rare for those pieces to align.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Debbie KL on December 27, 2015, 03:40:20 PM
As with all the arts, there's a lot of low to medium quality supply but very limited high quality. Thus the next-to-nothing pay for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists but those who have usually are paid very well.

Eta:before it becomes a tangent - let me say that I realize "quality" in the arts is mostly subjective and in this case I mean quality as judged by the broad marketplace, which often differs tremendously from quality as judged by connoisseurs, those interested in the avant garde, etc.

Mmm...get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that.  A lot of very good musicians can't work, and the lack of work has in turn greatly reduced the amount of good musicians, and lessened the quality overall, because fewer people are able to devote themselves to it as a profession.  It's not a kind world to specialist musicians now, unfortunately, and really great players who don't just jam but can play with taste and subtlety are harder and harder to find as those skills are valued less and less.  So I'd argue the "high quality" musicians are really struggling for the most part, and there are fewer of them overall.  

It would be harder still to get good players to fill in for Beach Boys shows, agreed.  It's a fairly specialized talent pool...but those folks are definitely out there.
I agree I way oversimplified. I specified in my second sentence "for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists..." because I realize there are a lot of skilled and talented musicians who never get established as such in the market because the pay starting out is so low and spotty, a lot of people end up doing other things. Most of my art school friends work at entirely unrelated jobs and the rest at professional graphic design-type things. Some seemed to have plenty of talent, but things didn't pan out and they needed to make a living.
The word "quality" is really not the word I should have used but I'm not sure what the word I should have used is - I sort of danced around this in my edit note.
Point is, I take your points fully. Lots of artists who would've done great work had the pieces fallen into place fell by the wayside because it's very rare for those pieces to align.

I was a pilot and worked in aviation, as well.  No one seems to want to pay pilots anymore for the education and practice skill level it takes to fly safely either.  Welcome to the world of the bottom line running everything.  Even our art.  Happy flying, everyone.  And, so far, so good for Brian's band, whom I adore.  I haven't heard the M&B show, but no doubt, they're talented.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on December 27, 2015, 03:43:33 PM
Although Surf Patrol's numbers have been discredited, could the $200 number have been the rate back when he had contacts in the band? When M&B were first starting out around 1998 I'm sure there would have been some lean years before the act got established. Those musicians being paid 'Beach Boys' numbers prior possibly had to take a cut or move on.

Just wondering.

Kowalski left the band in September 2007: I'm guessing he was paid more than $200/show by then, but in any case, Hennessey clearly stated that the band are currently being paid $200... which has been shown up as a complete lie. Hennessey's primary grouch is very simple: no friends in the band any more, no comps or BSPs.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 27, 2015, 06:46:37 PM
As with all the arts, there's a lot of low to medium quality supply but very limited high quality. Thus the next-to-nothing pay for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists but those who have usually are paid very well.

Eta:before it becomes a tangent - let me say that I realize "quality" in the arts is mostly subjective and in this case I mean quality as judged by the broad marketplace, which often differs tremendously from quality as judged by connoisseurs, those interested in the avant garde, etc.

Mmm...get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that.  A lot of very good musicians can't work, and the lack of work has in turn greatly reduced the amount of good musicians, and lessened the quality overall, because fewer people are able to devote themselves to it as a profession.  It's not a kind world to specialist musicians now, unfortunately, and really great players who don't just jam but can play with taste and subtlety are harder and harder to find as those skills are valued less and less.  So I'd argue the "high quality" musicians are really struggling for the most part, and there are fewer of them overall.  

It would be harder still to get good players to fill in for Beach Boys shows, agreed.  It's a fairly specialized talent pool...but those folks are definitely out there.
I agree I way oversimplified. I specified in my second sentence "for those who have not established themselves as high quality artists..." because I realize there are a lot of skilled and talented musicians who never get established as such in the market because the pay starting out is so low and spotty, a lot of people end up doing other things. Most of my art school friends work at entirely unrelated jobs and the rest at professional graphic design-type things. Some seemed to have plenty of talent, but things didn't pan out and they needed to make a living.
The word "quality" is really not the word I should have used but I'm not sure what the word I should have used is - I sort of danced around this in my edit note.
Point is, I take your points fully. Lots of artists who would've done great work had the pieces fallen into place fell by the wayside because it's very rare for those pieces to align.

I was a pilot and worked in aviation, as well.  No one seems to want to pay pilots anymore for the education and practice skill level it takes to fly safely either.  Welcome to the world of the bottom line running everything.  Even our art.  Happy flying, everyone.  And, so far, so good for Brian's band, whom I adore.  I haven't heard the M&B show, but no doubt, they're talented.
a pilot? cool.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 27, 2015, 06:50:53 PM
Although Surf Patrol's numbers have been discredited, could the $200 number have been the rate back when he had contacts in the band? When M&B were first starting out around 1998 I'm sure there would have been some lean years before the act got established. Those musicians being paid 'Beach Boys' numbers prior possibly had to take a cut or move on.

Just wondering.

Kowalski left the band in September 2007: I'm guessing he was paid more than $200/show by then, but in any case, Hennessey clearly stated that the band are currently being paid $200... which has been shown up as a complete lie. Hennessey's primary grouch is very simple: no friends in the band any more, no comps or BSPs.
Someone (John Manning? Andrew Hickey?) said upthread that that's the union base rate. If so, I'm guessing some people who work for the tour make that amount. So perhaps the $200 was a misapplied extrapolation.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Pretty Funky on December 27, 2015, 06:53:00 PM
Although Surf Patrol's numbers have been discredited, could the $200 number have been the rate back when he had contacts in the band? When M&B were first starting out around 1998 I'm sure there would have been some lean years before the act got established. Those musicians being paid 'Beach Boys' numbers prior possibly had to take a cut or move on.

Just wondering.

Kowalski left the band in September 2007: I'm guessing he was paid more than $200/show by then, but in any case, Hennessey clearly stated that the band are currently being paid $200... which has been shown up as a complete lie. Hennessey's primary grouch is very simple: no friends in the band any more, no comps or BSPs.

Ya know.....If I was in a group and some wanna be fanboy kept asking me "what do you get paid" I would probably make up some low ball figure just to shut him up! Possibly the case here. It was none of his business.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: adamghost on December 27, 2015, 10:04:05 PM
John Oates recently said (and he's not the first), "I'll play for free.  You have to pay me to leave the house, get on a plane, stay in a hotel..."  That's really it.  I've done my share of touring and it is really tough on your body, in ways that are both manifest at the time and that you don't even realize until you stop (says the guy who's now a full-time studio musician-producer and rarely tours anymore).  I'm sure the guys in Mike's band make decent money, the real question is the money vs. the stress factor, which other folks have rightly touched on.

I loved Emily's point about pilots.  It is the same thing though happily not as life threatening.  There are so many factors that I could write a whole thesis about (but I won't), the bottom line being that in today's day and age conditions are not conducive to people making a career out of music or to becoming really good musicians if they do.  It's just a less lucrative AND less competitive market, so musicians make less cash and they don't play as well, the two of which are correlated. 

If you want to see truly great musicians, go to a wedding or a corporate event, because that's where the pros are now.  Or any bar in Southeast Asia, pretty much, where there's still a motivational factor.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 28, 2015, 02:33:50 AM
John Oates recently said (and he's not the first), "I'll play for free.  You have to pay me to leave the house, get on a plane, stay in a hotel..."  That's really it.  I've done my share of touring and it is really tough on your body, in ways that are both manifest at the time and that you don't even realize until you stop (says the guy who's now a full-time studio musician-producer and rarely tours anymore).  I'm sure the guys in Mike's band make decent money, the real question is the money vs. the stress factor, which other folks have rightly touched on.

I loved Emily's point about pilots.  It is the same thing though happily not as life threatening.  There are so many factors that I could write a whole thesis about (but I won't), the bottom line being that in today's day and age conditions are not conducive to people making a career out of music or to becoming really good musicians if they do.  It's just a less lucrative AND less competitive market, so musicians make less cash and they don't play as well, the two of which are correlated.  

If you want to see truly great musicians, go to a wedding or a corporate event, because that's where the pros are now.  Or any bar in Southeast Asia, pretty much, where there's still a motivational factor.
I hate to forego the compliment, but it belongs to Debbie - she mentioned piloting.
I'm really intrigued by this idea of how musicians make a living and whether skilled/talented musicians are or are not the most likely to find regular lucrative work. I'm going to start a general music thread and hope you will contribute.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: jeffh on December 28, 2015, 04:51:16 AM
Why do we assume that all of the backup band makes the same amount? $700.00 is the figure that has been tossed about lately. Perhaps , like in other occupations, they make different amounts, based on various factors, like length of time with the band and so forth. Just thinking!


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: filledeplage on December 28, 2015, 06:09:45 AM
Yes - it's all how we look at it.  Schlepping across the world when there's family at home has to get old after awhile...REALLY OLD.  And I love travel.

Then again, I think I remember being beaten to a pulp here last Spring (I think) for suggesting that when musicians who have worked for more than a year on a new release, we shouldn't download it for free without knowing that we are stealing.  Is the relationship of musicians' struggling and this mentality really lost on some people here?
Debbie - I agree 1000% as to the theft involved in music downloading, and that the writers/composers should be compensated.  Yes, it is stealing. And, it runs fully counter to our reasons for copyright protection and intellectual property rights.

But, for both great bands, as someone above mentioned, in terms of swapping members, I am not sure that their skill sets are "fungible" (meaning one can substitute for another.) I cannot imagine the quality downgrades without the likes of a Probyn, Nelson, Darian, Paul or Scott in Brian's Band or Totten or Cowsill, in the Touring Band. These guys have just honed their skills and grown-in-the-job. You just can't buy that.  ;)

  


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Wirestone on December 28, 2015, 07:39:32 AM
Incidentally, my post wasn't meant to suggest that band members of either group are anything but extraordinarily talented. They clearly are! And they deserve what they're paid -- and more. We're all part of a broader economic reality, though. And in the United States at least, it has seldom proved rewarding toward artists.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Debbie KL on December 28, 2015, 09:58:59 AM
Incidentally, my post wasn't meant to suggest that band members of either group are anything but extraordinarily talented. They clearly are! And they deserve what they're paid -- and more. We're all part of a broader economic reality, though. And in the United States at least, it has seldom proved rewarding toward artists.

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly didn't take your comments as diminishing the musicians referenced.  I also think that it's safe to say that while we have the headliner artist's name, relationships develop over the years and matter.  Brian lost his own brothers as fellow artists, so I would imagine he's realistic about losing any of his band - yet it would also be painful and difficult, as well.

I know that there are certainly nations that make their appreciation of artists real through support of the arts, and the US isn't one of them.  There's now the GoFundMe/Kickstarter forms of compensation for those struggling artists (read MOST artists), but it's tough for anyone and what we've lost due to this lack of respect and support is a tragic unknown.  What haven't we shared as a culture because it was just too difficult to get the art to us?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 28, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
Quote
Yes - it's all how we look at it.  Schlepping across the world when there's family at home has to get old after awhile...REALLY OLD.  And I love travel.

Then again, I think I remember being beaten to a pulp here last Spring (I think) for suggesting that when musicians who have worked for more than a year on a new release, we shouldn't download it for free without knowing that we are stealing.  Is the relationship of musicians' struggling and this mentality really lost on some people here?

This hits home for me, on many levels. As many here know, I was a diehard fan of the late Scott Weiland . One of the things that made the last few years of his life so miserable for him was the fact that he had to pay $60K A MONTH in alimony, and since there is little money to be made via record sales anymore, he was forced to tour in order to pay that (in addition to any other expenses) pretty much nonstop, even though his mental health issues (not to mention his ongoing battle- sadly since lost- with drugs and alcohol ) meant it was a dangerous situation for him to be constantly on the road. He hated the travel, he hated being away from his wife Jamie, was depressed about not being able to see his kids (with his ex)...all of that exploded into a fatal powder keg.

For me specifically , the decline of record sales has hit me pretty hard, in that I'm a studio guy *only*. Since August, I've gotten a few thousand streams (streams NOT sales), and you know what that earned me? Not even enough for PayPal to cut a check. So yeah, this free download business hurts the 'little guy', and pretty much everyone but the top and second tier artists get royally f***ed over.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 28, 2015, 11:19:30 AM

For me specifically , the decline of record sales has hit me pretty hard, in that I'm a studio guy *only*. Since August, I've gotten a few thousand streams (streams NOT sales), and you know what that earned me? Not even enough for PayPal to cut a check. So yeah, this free download business hurts the 'little guy', and pretty much everyone but the top and second tier artists get royally f***ed over.
It's awful that S. Weiland was legally trapped in a dangerous situation.

I opened a thread in General Music, so if you want to answer there, that would be cool, but:
Is your music on hosted streaming services with monthly user fees/advertising, or is it self-hosted or on upload sites like soundcloud?
How does one get one's music on a hosted service? And what's the pay structure like?
Do you pay out-of-pocket for all production costs? Without a label, does one rely solely on social media for promotion?


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: adamghost on December 28, 2015, 11:32:52 AM
John Oates recently said (and he's not the first), "I'll play for free.  You have to pay me to leave the house, get on a plane, stay in a hotel..."  That's really it.  I've done my share of touring and it is really tough on your body, in ways that are both manifest at the time and that you don't even realize until you stop (says the guy who's now a full-time studio musician-producer and rarely tours anymore).  I'm sure the guys in Mike's band make decent money, the real question is the money vs. the stress factor, which other folks have rightly touched on.

I loved Emily's point about pilots.  It is the same thing though happily not as life threatening.  There are so many factors that I could write a whole thesis about (but I won't), the bottom line being that in today's day and age conditions are not conducive to people making a career out of music or to becoming really good musicians if they do.  It's just a less lucrative AND less competitive market, so musicians make less cash and they don't play as well, the two of which are correlated.  

If you want to see truly great musicians, go to a wedding or a corporate event, because that's where the pros are now.  Or any bar in Southeast Asia, pretty much, where there's still a motivational factor.
I hate to forego the compliment, but it belongs to Debbie - she mentioned piloting.
I'm really intrigued by this idea of how musicians make a living and whether skilled/talented musicians are or are not the most likely to find regular lucrative work. I'm going to start a general music thread and hope you will contribute.

That was sloppy of me.  I've been aware that I need to more attentive when reading posts on the internet.

Oh, I have lots to say on this subject, it might be hard to shut me up...but feel free to tell me to.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 28, 2015, 11:36:56 AM
How does one get one's music on a hosted service? And what's the pay structure like?

I can answer this, or at least one popular way of doing it. My old band The National Pep made our music available through CDBaby, which is probably the most popular choice for unsigned bands. CDBaby sell your music directly as CDs and MP3s, but also distribute it (for a cut -- I think 20% IIRC) to both other stores (eg Amazon, iTunes) and to streaming services such as Spotify and YouTube, then collect the money themselves.

As for the pay structure, a picture is worth a thousand words...
(https://olsenbloom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/screenshot-from-2015-11-23-163231.png)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 28, 2015, 11:57:36 AM

For me specifically , the decline of record sales has hit me pretty hard, in that I'm a studio guy *only*. Since August, I've gotten a few thousand streams (streams NOT sales), and you know what that earned me? Not even enough for PayPal to cut a check. So yeah, this free download business hurts the 'little guy', and pretty much everyone but the top and second tier artists get royally f***ed over.
It's awful that S. Weiland was legally trapped in a dangerous situation.

I opened a thread in General Music, so if you want to answer there, that would be cool, but:
Is your music on hosted streaming services with monthly user fees/advertising, or is it self-hosted or on upload sites like soundcloud?
How does one get one's music on a hosted service? And what's the pay structure like?
Do you pay out-of-pocket for all production costs? Without a label, does one rely solely on social media for promotion?

It is on ReverbNation, yes, but mainly demos. The 'professional' stuff (pro in the sense that it is out for sale...still home recorded, though) is available on Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play. Spotify though is streaming only, and pays fractions of a penny per stream. How small? Well, I'd have to have over a million streams to earn around $1000.  With the other options, I get paid per purchase (currently only available as a online download...no physical copies currently). The messed up part is I wish I could just have a few songs available to stream and the rest to sell, but it's all or nothing. No label, so all promotion is done by myself and the others in the group. Well, right now it's just down to me and my wife; one member is currently in this hospital undergoing dialysis (as a result of complications due to cancer treatment) and the other has all but left.  

Going to copy/paste this on the other thread, to keep this one on topic.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 28, 2015, 01:56:02 PM
Ouch.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Debbie KL on December 28, 2015, 02:21:39 PM

For me specifically , the decline of record sales has hit me pretty hard, in that I'm a studio guy *only*. Since August, I've gotten a few thousand streams (streams NOT sales), and you know what that earned me? Not even enough for PayPal to cut a check. So yeah, this free download business hurts the 'little guy', and pretty much everyone but the top and second tier artists get royally f***ed over.
It's awful that S. Weiland was legally trapped in a dangerous situation.

I opened a thread in General Music, so if you want to answer there, that would be cool, but:
Is your music on hosted streaming services with monthly user fees/advertising, or is it self-hosted or on upload sites like soundcloud?
How does one get one's music on a hosted service? And what's the pay structure like?
Do you pay out-of-pocket for all production costs? Without a label, does one rely solely on social media for promotion?

It is on ReverbNation, yes, but mainly demos. The 'professional' stuff (pro in the sense that it is out for sale...still home recorded, though) is available on Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play. Spotify though is streaming only, and pays fractions of a penny per stream. How small? Well, I'd have to have over a million streams to earn around $1000.  With the other options, I get paid per purchase (currently only available as a online download...no physical copies currently). The messed up part is I wish I could just have a few songs available to stream and the rest to sell, but it's all or nothing. No label, so all promotion is done by myself and the others in the group. Well, right now it's just down to me and my wife; one member is currently in this hospital undergoing dialysis (as a result of complications due to cancer treatment) and the other has all but left.  

Going to copy/paste this on the other thread, to keep this one on topic.

This is why it's such an issue for me.  It's absurd.  Actually, it's cruelly unfair.  I wish there were actual powerful unions again.  It's what's needed to stop such exploitation.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: Emily on December 28, 2015, 03:06:28 PM

For me specifically , the decline of record sales has hit me pretty hard, in that I'm a studio guy *only*. Since August, I've gotten a few thousand streams (streams NOT sales), and you know what that earned me? Not even enough for PayPal to cut a check. So yeah, this free download business hurts the 'little guy', and pretty much everyone but the top and second tier artists get royally f***ed over.
It's awful that S. Weiland was legally trapped in a dangerous situation.

I opened a thread in General Music, so if you want to answer there, that would be cool, but:
Is your music on hosted streaming services with monthly user fees/advertising, or is it self-hosted or on upload sites like soundcloud?
How does one get one's music on a hosted service? And what's the pay structure like?
Do you pay out-of-pocket for all production costs? Without a label, does one rely solely on social media for promotion?

It is on ReverbNation, yes, but mainly demos. The 'professional' stuff (pro in the sense that it is out for sale...still home recorded, though) is available on Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play. Spotify though is streaming only, and pays fractions of a penny per stream. How small? Well, I'd have to have over a million streams to earn around $1000.  With the other options, I get paid per purchase (currently only available as a online download...no physical copies currently). The messed up part is I wish I could just have a few songs available to stream and the rest to sell, but it's all or nothing. No label, so all promotion is done by myself and the others in the group. Well, right now it's just down to me and my wife; one member is currently in this hospital undergoing dialysis (as a result of complications due to cancer treatment) and the other has all but left.  

Going to copy/paste this on the other thread, to keep this one on topic.

This is why it's such an issue for me.  It's absurd.  Actually, it's cruelly unfair.  I wish there were actual powerful unions again.  It's what's needed to stop such exploitation.
Yeah. Call me old-fashioned, but the start-up economy leaves way too many people with chance being the only thing between them and homelessness.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 29, 2015, 01:55:41 PM
Doesn't really particularly mean anything, but apparently a few days ago "California Surf Inc." did a gig with a lineup where you get guys from Brian's, Mike's, and Al's band!

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/9553_10153821187909539_2694087450299053281_n.jpg?oh=b19d17a90fdb2775b972cc2936a66764&oe=5705D512)

I know both Christian Love and Adrian Baker filled in with this band (for Matt and Probyn I believe) a few months back, and it looks like they've once again had Christian in the band, this time alongside Probyn in addition to Carter, Figueroa, and Hinsche.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: filledeplage on December 29, 2015, 02:42:18 PM
Doesn't really particularly mean anything, but apparently a few days ago "California Surf Inc." did a gig with a lineup where you get guys from Brian's, Mike's, and Al's band!

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/9553_10153821187909539_2694087450299053281_n.jpg?oh=b19d17a90fdb2775b972cc2936a66764&oe=5705D512)

I know both Christian Love and Adrian Baker filled in with this band (for Matt and Probyn I believe) a few months back, and it looks like they've once again had Christian in the band, this time alongside Probyn in addition to Carter, Figueroa, and Hinsche.

Hey Jude - Had the chance to catch them last Spring and thought they were just terrific, and put on a really great show.  Tremendous musicians.

Thanks for that photo.   ;)


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: AndrewHickey on December 29, 2015, 02:43:21 PM
Now *that* would be a fun band to see live.


Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: HeyJude on December 29, 2015, 02:59:20 PM
I'd certainly enjoy seeing that band. All top notch guys. I wonder how strong they sound vocally. Bobby is a good lead singer, don't know much about his harmony work. I recall seeing Ed Carter in one of these side bands singing in a clip on YouTube, and he was solid but didn't sound like singing was his thing. Neither Bobby or Ed often were in the harmony stacks during their years in the touring band, right? Apart from Bobby sometimes filling in some falsetto parts.

It's a pretty lean band lineup, so I'm definitely curious to see what that lineup would sound like. With neither Matt Jardine nor Adrian Baker present, it would also be interesting to see who would be doing any falsetto parts. I would presume either Probyn or Christian.

It's a bummer, this lineup (or something like it) should be backing Al on strings of dates. I know Al has a semi-regular gig touring with Brian now, but I'd love to see Al break oout a little solo tour with something like this band, with perhaps a few more of Brian's guys added.



Title: Re: Randell Kirsch
Post by: filledeplage on December 29, 2015, 03:17:29 PM
I'd certainly enjoy seeing that band. All top notch guys. I wonder how strong they sound vocally. Bobby is a good lead singer, don't know much about his harmony work. I recall seeing Ed Carter in one of these side bands singing in a clip on YouTube, and he was solid but didn't sound like singing was his thing. Neither Bobby or Ed often were in the harmony stacks during their years in the touring band, right? Apart from Bobby sometimes filling in some falsetto parts.

It's a pretty lean band lineup, so I'm definitely curious to see what that lineup would sound like. With neither Matt Jardine nor Adrian Baker present, it would also be interesting to see who would be doing any falsetto parts. I would presume either Probyn or Christian.

It's a bummer, this lineup (or something like it) should be backing Al on strings of dates. I know Al has a semi-regular gig touring with Brian now, but I'd love to see Al break oout a little solo tour with something like this band, with perhaps a few more of Brian's guys added.
Hey Jude - I am well-spoiled to have seen with Al's band, too, with much of this lineup as well as a few others such as Richie Cannatta, with both Matt and Adam, whom I had never seen perform.  Nice vocals from Adam.   

Ed, who did a screaming guitar for several decades with The Beach Boys, does a great Rhonda (in Al's absence) as well as Bobby on SOS.  See them if you get a chance.  It is the classic 60's rock lineup.   No frills, no videos, just straight out rock and roll fun. 

And, they know all the words ;)